David Masterson <[email protected]> writes: > 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.
Not really. Why would it become more complicated? If the code solving the problem do not need to be complicated, I see no reason why LLMs should make it complicated. Of course, if LLMs can (successfully) solve more complex problems, they will naturally produce more complex code, if that complexity is necessary to solve a given problem. But that's exactly the same for human-contributed patches - difficult problems require non-trivial patches. Or are you talking about problems so complex that humans cannot write (quickly)? We are not yet there, I think, so it is rather theoretical. >> 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...? I was simply replying to your reference to other discussion, which is partially about opening the gates... or not... or partially. > 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. I did not get this paragraph. Could you elaborate? -- 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>
