> Truthfully discloses LLM generation => Additional scrutiny or stricter review, because we distrust you

This is not what the policy says.

Even pre-LLM it was common sense and common courtesy to disclose when you copy-pasted code from other sources, be it stackoverflow or some other project. I do that and it's also a legal requirement for a fair number of open source licenses and it doesn't matter whether you reviewed all of that... it doesn't absolve you from declaring it. It also helps the reviewer get more context: where do the ideas originate from, how much effort was potentially involved in certain parts of the patches... those are all fuzzy intuitions... not final judgements.

Whether LLM generated (or copy-pasted) code needs more scrutiny or not depends on a lot of factors. It may very well require more scrutiny, it depends on the scope, the workflow, the patch owner, etc. Withholding that information is simply poor collaboration. You're interacting with another human and their time and energy. Your reviewer may not care or they may. We won't be able to impose opinions on anyone, but this disclosure is essential for other people to get the context they need to conduct a review. It doesn't say whether the reviewer will be negatively biased against AI or not. This discussion won't change those positions. But it will set boundaries as to how they can treat you: they won't be able to reject your patch just because it's AI generated.

So in a way, this policy is trying to protect both sides.
_______________________________________________
ghc-devs mailing list -- ghc-devs@haskell.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ghc-devs-leave@haskell.org