Seems like a good policy in general, open to changes, i hope this will make reviewers’ job easier, considering how hard reviewing PR’s for a university project with partners who insist on using LLMs for almost everything, i can barely imagine how frustrating this all must be.
Oof, lots of valid points, especially that the value of a contribution is in the decisions it makes. Having an LLM guess those decisions makes the resulting code significantly less valuable.
Hell, one could argue pretty much entirely worthless, because the maintainers could prompt an LLM themselves, if the decisions didn’t matter.
The policy summarizes itself this way: It’s fine to use LLMs to answer questions, analyze, distill, refine, check, suggest, review. But not to create.
Saying that “it’s fine” seems a little overly broad, because sometimes it isn’t, but I suppose that by “fine” they simply mean that it’s not forbidden by the policy. A more complete summary would also mention that where it is allowed, disclosure of LLM use is required.
Personally, on the few occasions where I’ve resorted to querying an LLM it’s been very much the same kind of experience that using Stack Overflow used to be. It’s a quick way to see one way that other people have done some thing, but you wouldn’t want to rely on it being the right way.
I guess that the purpose of the one-line summary is to communicate the spirit of the policy. The details that you are asking for, is what constitutes the majority of the the policy document itself. While you could probably summarize the body of the policy in more detail, having multiple lists with different levels of details would likely lead to confusion. So I think that the approach they’ve taken makes sense
As was said elsewhere on the Internet:
Don’t get me wrong, I welcome this policy, I just wish the “one line zinger” was a little more detailed, because if you come away from the article without reading on (or, more realistically, if secondary sources pick up this quote without the surrounding context), one could easily get a wrong idea.
Seems pragmatic and well-written. But it doesn’t say “LLM’s are hot garbage in all circumstances and people who use them are all smelly turds,” so I’m guessing there will be backlash in this community.
Hey, I know you are probably trying to help, but when you talk over/about other people and categorize them/put them in boxes, it never helps open opinions and discussions. Maybe don’t put your expectations first, especially if they may be wrong.
Sorry. Thought it’s worth saying, and my hope with this message is to reduce the volume of assumptions people make about each other here.
Fair, but I was making a general comment with tongue firmly in cheek. I didn’t mean to denigrate anybody. Certainly not any individual. It was broad commentary on the general, though certainly not ubiquitous, view on LLM’s in the larger communities on Lemmy.
Hey! I’m a person who specifically wants to hear that LLMs are always flaming garbage. Thanks for the explanation. Intent and tone is hard online. Your original comment, which probably read as a joke and firmly tongue-in-cheek to you, read as a frustrated and resentful snarky one-liner zinger to me until I got this explanation that you didn’t mean it that way. Of course, I’m carrying my own biases (anti-LLM, frustration with harshness and generalizations and insults that I perceive to be happening more frequently on the Fediverse than back on Reddit or in real life).
I wonder if there are more jokesters than actual harsh people and I’m just misinterpreting it. (I have been stepping back from the Fediverse because of how many generalizations and frustrated, resentful, snarky comments I’ve seen; and how many LLM discourse posts I see on programming.dev that I, who have that as a trigger topic, end up rabbitholing down instead of doing something more useful. Me even clicking and commenting on this post is an example of the latter, I fear.)
Thanks again for clarifying your intent and going de-escalation mode, I think we need way more of that energy.
