Re: LLM Commit in upstream `master`?!

Thanos Apollo <[email protected]> Sat, 25 Jul 2026 17:18:58 +0300

Newsgroups	gmane.emacs.devel
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

"Arsen Arsenović" <[email protected]> writes:

> That some people, who don't know what the Luddites were, think that
> calling someone a "Luddite" is an insult does not make them wrong.

Feel free to reclaim "Luddite" as a compliment, then.  Good for you.

> I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
>
> Obviously contributors are expected to respect policies?  And those with
> write privileges trusted to respect them, even.

A policy that can distinguish only honest LLM users from dishonest ones
rewards nondisclosure while punishing honesty.  It seems to be working
splendidly.

There is now a commit in master explicitly co-authored by Claude.  If
that creates the legal problem you describe, the policy has already
failed.

Why not add an AGENTS.md defining an acceptable workflow, including
authorship and commit requirements?  These tools are already widely
used.  Refusing to document their acceptable use will not prevent it; it
will merely encourage nondisclosure and make accidental violations more
likely.

> How does that change whether or how the nonsensical property laws apply
> to LLM output?

It does not settle the law.  But major software companies deploy
generated code at scale under well-funded legal departments.  That is
strong evidence that the risk can be managed.  "Some questions remain
unresolved" is not the same as "LLM-assisted contributions must be
presumed illegal."

-- 
Thanos Apollo ☧
https://thanosapollo.org

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 832 B)