David Masterson <[email protected]> writes: > The issue, though, that I think Ihor has raised elsewhere is that the > code (patch) generated by the LLM, copyrighted or not, may be so "dense" > as to be beyond easy human understanding.
I did not say that. LLM-generated code is nowhere beyond human understanding. > ... Therefore, if it is accepted, > that is a potential loss for free software as it can lead to eventual > humans lazily accepting the LLM code without understanding it and > leading to future problems. This part is consistent with what I said, but it does not follow from your previous argument :) Also, I think I need to be clear here - we do not currently suffer from high inflow of LLM-generated patches, unlike some other projects. >From my perspective, beyond aligning with GNU policy, we should simply make sure that our contributor community keeps being healthy. That involves addressing both concerns about LLMs from some community members, as well as not alienating LLM users (who are only growing in numbers, including some prominent community members, like John Wiegley). -- Ihor Radchenko // yantar92, Org mode maintainer, Learn more about Org mode at <https://orgmode.org/>. Support Org development at <https://liberapay.com/org-mode>, or support my work at <https://liberapay.com/yantar92>
