We all seem to recognize that interacting with LLM generated code or documentation makes a significant number of contributors uncomfortable. If LLM generated code and documentation makes it into the codebase, then it will become practically impossible to avoid and thus it will make a significant number of contributors uncomfortable. Why, then, do we keep considering to allow such behavior? 

Cheers,
Jaro

On 26 Jul 2026, at 10:27, Moritz Angermann via ghc-devs <moritz.angermann@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Tom,

Thank you. I think this gets us considerably closer.

There is an important difference to me between:

  We strongly prefer human-written code.

and:

  Some contributors strongly prefer human-written code.

I could live quite comfortably with the latter. It acknowledges that the community is not monolithic and that this preference genuinely exists, without the project itself adopting that preference as its own.

I would be less comfortable with “a large portion” or “a majority,” because those are empirical claims that I don’t think the GitLab issue establishes. To make such a claim, we would first need a representative consultation and agreement on who constitutes the relevant community and is eligible to participate.

Perhaps wording along these lines would capture the concern without overclaiming:

   Some contributors strongly prefer human-written code and documentation and may be uncomfortable reviewing or maintaining LLM-assisted contributions.

That seems factual, acknowledges their position, and leaves the project itself neutral between contributors who hold different views.

Best,
Moritz



On Sun, Jul 26, 2026 at 2:20 PM <amindfv@mailbox.org> wrote:
> On 07/26/2026 8:57 AM CEST Moritz Angermann <moritz.angermann@gmail.com> wrote:

> Human-written: Each and every substantive character of the final text was manually composed by a human. No assistive tooling was used to produce the substantive wording itself.
>
> Machine-written:Each and every substantive character of the final text was produced by a machine without meaningful human intervention. This is, to me, the diametric opposite ofhuman-written.
>
> Human-delegated: A human deliberately delegates the production of some or all of the substantive text to a machine.
>
> Human-guided: A human iteratively guides the production by providing prompts, constraints, corrections, examples, and feedback.
>
> Human-supervised: A human continuously evaluates, accepts, rejects, or redirects the machine’s output while it is being produced.
>
> Human-edited: A human substantially modifies machine-produced text after generation before adopting it.
>
> Human-authored: A human exercises judgement over, understands, selects, revises, adopts, and ultimately takes responsibility for the resulting work, regardless of how individual parts of it were initially produced.

All of your definitions here, except the first, seem to include large sections of the final result being written by an LLM.

I think "Human-written" could be expanded to include things like, "oh, I copy-pasted this 3-word phrase that came out of a conversation with an LLM chatbot," but I agree with the previous policy proposal: "By all means use an LLM to generate ideas, points to cover, and structure, but the best way to take responsibility for every word is to write every word."

Cheers,
Tom