On Tue, Jul 21, 2026 at 04:43:29PM +0300, Wolfgang Jeltsch via ghc-devs wrote:
Am Di 21.07.2026 14:32 schrieb Tom Ellis via ghc-devs:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2026 at 04:24:53PM +0300, Wolfgang Jeltsch via ghc-devs wrote:
I sense that the text has notably moved towards the “pro-LLM” side. Sometimes this led to outright wrong statements, like the following:
If you carefully review and understand every line of code or documentation produced with LLM assistance, revise it where necessary, and take full responsibility for every line, that constitutes human authorship.
No, it doesn’t. An author is a person who *created* the work. If the work was assembled by an LLM, based on only guidelines by the person in question, then said person acted only as a reviewer, not as an author.
Would it help if the text were changed to “… that constitutes human authorship for the purposes of this policy.”? That is, make it clear
This would still mean using the term “authorship” in contradiction to its actual meaning.
I think that is highly debatable, but probably a philosophical discussion out of scope for ghc-devs.
Why not be honest and say that GHC doesn’t require contributors to be authors? Or just be silent about this issue?
I have no objection to the policy being expressed in a way that doesn't refer to authorship. I disagree with the assessment that referring to authorship in the way it currently does makes the policy not "honest". I think claiming so probably violates the guidelines for respectful communication. Tom