Ihor Radchenko <[email protected]> writes: > 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.
I did say "easy". I'm sure you understand that, over time, LLM generated could become more complicated and the ability of free software users may not keep up. My wording, though, was bad. >> ... 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). High inflow yet? Isn't this discussion about opening the gates...? My goal was enlisting the LLM in helping keep the developer community healthy by better explaining its code/patches in ways that previous developeers never could (or could spend the time to) and, thus, teach those that come after. -- David Masterson
