Re: Common Lisp with no AI (that's ironic I suppose)

On Fri, Feb 27, 2026 at 3:59 AM Christophe Rhodes <[email protected]> wrote:

> [ speaking personally, not officially in any capacity ]
>
> "Scott L. Burson" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > Everyone here knows that LLMs can screw up,
>
> [I]f we say that that is the fault of the LLM, even as shorthand, we
> fail in insisting that the people making choices take responsibility for
> those choices.


Someone taking "LLMs can screw up" as relieving themselves of
responsibility for choosing to use one is reading my statement in the
opposite way from how I intended it.  But, perhaps you're right that some
will take it that way.

Unfortunately [...] the quality of error is
> different in generic LLM output for a prompt or scenario compared with
> generic, or even expert, human for a similar scenario.  In particular,
> with humans errors tend to be correlated -- a person not paying
> attention to a particular aspect of a problem is also, all other things
> being equal, more likely to leave typos in, fail to use technical terms
> correctly, and so on.  These markers of poor attention to detail are
> essentially absent, or so different as to
>

Can I tease you a little about forgetting to end a sentence whose subject
was attention to detail?  :-) :-)

Now [...] the vetting is harder.  It is *exhausting* to have to read
> everything in a patch line by line with adversarial suspicion.
>

I see.  All that being the case, and apropos of the earlier conversation
about whether you should formally adopt a policy on AI-generated
submissions, I think you are making a strong case for doing so.  I think
you could fairly insist on disclosure.

As a secondary point, I am also finding it less likely that people
> actually respond to factual correction


Oof.  That's a disturbing trend.

-- Scott

_______________________________________________
Sbcl-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sbcl-devel