Magnus,I see you did not read my email, but got hung up on the word[1] I chose. It is not about the mere disclosure. It is about the classification of contributors into two categories, those that write code by hand (who are strongly preferred) over those that use assistive technologies to write code.Now, please explain to me how I am supposed to feel about this, as someone who considers themselves in the second category? And what word choice you would prefer me using?Best,Moritz—[1]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/segregate_______________________________________________On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 4:02 PM Magnus Viernickel via ghc-devs <ghc-devs@haskell.org> wrote:I find the framing that this policy is used to "segregate" (given what the term usually refers to) developers to again be crossing a line. Nobody is threatening anyone's existence or dehumanizing them by asking them to disclose if they used an LLM to write their code. Since this is the second time this happened during this discussion, I would really hope we could be a bit less careless with our words.
Best
_______________________________________________Magnus
On 7/16/26 10:51, Moritz Angermann via ghc-devs wrote:
Julian,
I'm not sure how many more times I need to write this: It is fundamentally against my nature to tell anyone what to do, that includes telling people to use LLMs.It is probably from the same foundational values, that I am against telling people what NOT to do. You of all people probably know this even the best.
You explicitly want a policy that puts judgement on people who use LLMs, and segregates the pure (hand written) from the impure (assisted) people, yet youclaim you want to keep _all_ of them? You must see how qualified segregation tells one group that they are NOT welcome?
> If we don't express a preference for human authorship, we're effectively saying "you have to use LLMs so stay relevant". I think this is very clearly your opinion. It is not mine.
This is NOT my opinion, and I also do NOT think this logical conclusion follows.
Best,Moritz
On Thu, 16 Jul 2026 at 15:44, Julian Ospald via ghc-devs <ghc-devs@haskell.org> wrote:
> Well, if you want GHC to become a political vehicle for an ideology
Not spelling out values doesn't mean that you don't take sides. Your constant "LLMs are here to stay" and "it's just a tool" is exactly doing that, you are implying that:
- you can't resist, stop resisting
- you have to follow everyone else or you will be left behind
- your value is only your output
It is a mechnical view of open source and collaboration that is focused on the product, not on the culture from which those products arise. My view is different... I think it is the human culture from which those ideas and products originate and Haskell has given a home to many engaged and curious people. We want to keep those people, whether they use LLMs or not.
If we don't express a preference for human authorship, we're effectively saying "you have to use LLMs so stay relevant". I think this is very clearly your opinion. It is not mine.
_______________________________________________
ghc-devs mailing list -- ghc-devs@haskell.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ghc-devs-leave@haskell.org
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list -- ghc-devs@haskell.org To unsubscribe send an email to ghc-devs-leave@haskell.org
ghc-devs mailing list -- ghc-devs@haskell.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ghc-devs-leave@haskell.org
ghc-devs mailing list -- ghc-devs@haskell.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ghc-devs-leave@haskell.org