Hi Avi,
On Sun, 2 Aug 2026, at 4:29 PM, Avi Press via ghc-devs wrote:
"R1: Recommendation: write the final version yourself" could be better softened to something like: "R1: Make a final human author-led pass." My thinking is that the current wording somewhat undermines the otherwise tool-neutral position, and could even be interpreted as a requirement in practice despite being labeled a recommendation. In my opinion, hand-typing every character isn't a relevant standard, except as a supplement to (P2).
I think that would make it quite a different recommendation and one that would no longer effectively "[force] you to think. It's hard to type in code that you don't understand!" In my experience at least, making a pass through LLM generated code can fail to catch both subtle issues and fundamental architectural mistakes. It often looks extremely reasonable until you start to engage with it critically and in earnest. It is extremely helpful to rephrase things in your own words to
It seems like putting the cart before the horse to discount a recommendation because it doesn't come across as neutral enough to some. I think it is worth coming up with a policy that is derived from our principles as a community rather than reacting to LLMs ad hoc. And it is a strength of this draft that it takes this approach. Yet, if we derive from our principles that certain aspects of LLMs are harmful then we shouldn't shy away from that! The very purpose of a policy is to draw out these things.
Cheers,
Teo