I believe there’s a small minority of LLM users who will show up to any comment thread and scream bloody murder if you post any kind of policy limiting LLM use. They seem to feel like it’s a personal attack and must justify their use of LLMs… for absolutely no reason. It’s wild.
Yep, same for those LLM creators who get all pissy when you provide (constructive) criticism about what they've outputted (or ask reasonable questions like if the person is doing actual tests) and they get all offended and call you ungrateful. This happened to me with the author of a Godot GDExtension: I'm (pretty sure) the dev was vibe-coding it, so after like 4-5 releases of it not loading in the editor at all due to what I would consider basic mistakes, I bluntly asked them if they were actually testing their code and got told I was ungrateful and being rude and disrespectful and all that even though what I was asking was very reasonable (after all, the dev had repeatedly released versions that wouldn't even load in the editor).
It's like a gun enthusiast throwing a fit because you don't want them to bring their gun into your house. "I get that you find it useful to have a gun at your house, and I understand that we are never going to revert back to the days when guns didn't exist, but we don't allow them in this house."
(and not, I'm not slyly trying to say LLMs are like guns, yeesh)
It feels like we're witness to the possible appearance of a new archetype: a whole new kind of capital-P-Person! A hitherto-unnoticed plane in personality space is slowly becoming discernible.
(Time will tell. It's possible this will turn out to be just one of the same old People that you've already met, with just some minor tweaks to the specific details...)
Last time I interacted with people who push these "policies", I saw my projects be dismissed as slop because LLMs had touched them, was called a "slop fetishist" in public and was told to leave in no uncertain terms.
That guy is stupid, the part of human nature containing dishonesty also houses "following the path of least resistance", which means that these people will simply contribute to another leading compiler without these rules.
Full text is linked below, but it is getting revised pretty regularly.
tl;dr: Requirement is that a human must be in the loop; the contributor must have reviewed the change by hand already; and is always accountable; the human must be able to answer questions about the change, such as strategy chosen, corner cases, etc. etc.
Even with this very permissive and well considered policy, they get a lot of slop submissions. Huge amounts of pure trash. And the debate continues about what to do about it.
Some are in favor of forbidding it simply because it would reduce the amount of slop they have to wade through, and the 10% good prs done with AI don't outweigh the 90% pure junk prs. Reviewer time is way too scarce.
But it is just as controversial there as it is over on lwn.
> Denying it is denying human nature, Mr. Bond, and the gods tend to punish the hubris of denying nature.