Re: GCC LLM policy adopted

--=-=-=
Content-Type: text/plain

Russ Allbery <[email protected]> writes:

> Sean Whitton <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> - It clearly distinguishes including LLM output in what gets committed
>>   from other uses of LLMs for software development, as I have been
>>   repeatedly advocating is important, without much uptake.
>
> For the record, I also strongly agree with this distinction. Sean is not
> alone.

I completely agree, too. And I fear that none of the ballot options
sufficiently cater to this distinction.

Sean & Russ: How would you feel about a ballot option that bans
LLM-generated contributions, but explicitly does not opine on the
contributing human using LLM tools to e.g. debug, learn, plan, critique
etc. when creating the contribution?

(I realize that such a proposal might be interpreted by some as forcing
those who are fine with LLM-generated code to become transcribers for
the LLM, but I hope that's a minority view and that most would
understand that that is not the intent.)


 Best,
 Gard

--=-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQJGBAEBCgAwFiEEz8XvhRCFHnNVtV6AnRFYKv1UjPoFAmpsXs4SHGdzcHJAbm9u
ZW1wdHkub3JnAAoJEJ0RWCr9VIz65boQAMkLMJy3QMoZChbb9a00R25DPtPcONvD
A0yYoU9TMczEINRxD6305fbA3wXJQNqxl0fDbcxH5Q1dZ9dGlLRPh5R/olIelCes
JFu9cAGzKkdaaMfl8wLpoYbEzvdUFpea6SEeiv2JndMFBX5/TBZw7k+N9X+cPEJi
uh9geotVwMq1DE2ChGS85goy7oeYO3HRPkbFm1laKU441ULqERLI+m1gedVAJGca
kntMrM74g++lfPsEgfIlaHFy0LV05PIB0lg2UauAURr1X5DxFAoKsoYjPa9j+RJS
ffy6Ow3yfLuoRUDZ8ZB3LQvMh4fh7eXzuxhLgXI7b05AEsw806Ss2ndLKeFMk5i7
yJtXnIhCWEvi5CKbCjmVLlULCtxupTHfAyCUP6CuE4Mxf1X+a98GK6hW7iImWzPv
GEhM7+rEOpuW7rJIETPUV5j0zPB4XWjbvBjI26hfGQjz8XOPVICovurqqy8poOq3
7Al6WwWK26dp+coawi/raXUvzRyItqARDR0DM8NDeOXQkaH0vWx+tTsvKnRbavfY
C+RqykElYbcRfzFt4wT9OAqpVbSFy6BeQMwLgM+0EKP6HSaBBw+pbD18kE4mwItR
X2yCHp+F2MZNjpshvir7hH1Lr5k6SkaHHX+bB5+XrFJfbUTqfHHcsQ1nVFPTColH
G3e2QyvPXwu+
=30KR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-=-=--