Re: LLM Commit in upstream `master`?!

Stefan Monnier via "Emacs development discussions." [26/Jul 10:59am -04] wrote:
> I can't count how many times I've lectured package maintainers not to
> force push on public branches unless it's a really
> exceptional circumstance, and now I see that without even 24h of
> discussion we've force-pushed because of some tiny bit of LLM infused
> commit message which may potentially in some possible future cause some
> hypothetical concern around the copyright on that commit message?
>
> To me, this act falls squarely into the "bat shit crazy" category.
>
> I know Emacs maintainers are not crazy at all, so I'll file the whole
> event under "blunders", but I have to speak up and say this was a very
> bad decision.  I don't use LLMs and keep praying that all the AI data
> centers burn up in flames, but can we stop about this LLM paranoia?
> LLMs cause enough real immediate problems that we don't need any
> extra paranoia.
>
> Yuan made a mistake because he misunderstood the policy, we learn, we
> `git revert`, and we move on.  Force pushes are not for mere worries.

In this case, if we were going to do it, it was better to do it as
quickly as possible.  Then fewer people are affected.  That's why I
didn't leave time for further discussion for people to come up with
other ideas for addressing the issue.

I think that it can't be right to call something like this a *very* bad
decision, because it ultimately affected just a handful of people over
the course of 24h, and then it fades into the past forever.  It's not
like some other bad decisions, that follow us around.

So, to be honest, I don't understand the strength of your words.  If you
are up for it I'd like to hear more about why you think this was truly a
terrible thing to do, on- or off-list.

-- 
Sean Whitton