Brandon,
Julian,
You seem to want to misunderstand me. I have said nowhere that the following labeling is on its own hostile towards contributors.
Whether or not it is
> We prefer contributions with non-trivial LLM assistance to be labeled LLM-assisted.
or
> We require contributions with non-trivial LLM assistance to be labeled LLM-assisted.
is pretty much irrelevant to me. I've defaulted to prefer, simply because the ask is non-enforceable, and again, I feel very uncomfortable explicitly dictating to others what to do. The implicit judgement from the policy is not. You are fine with the policy because it reinforces your fundamental belief (I assume) that LLMs are bad, horrible, corrupting, and society damaging tech-bro inventions. I am not, because it tells people that they are less welcome if they use LLMs in any form ("we strongly prefer"), I object especially to P3's wording in the document. You do not seem to (want to?) understand that this can be understood as hostile language. The policy ends up prescribing a process of how people should act, instead of describing what we want.
The policy exaggerated states: we want you to write code by hand without the use of assistive technology, and if you end up writing code with assistive technology, we think less of you.
Now this (I assume) very much aligns with your worldview. But I fundamentally disagree with that. It's not inclusive.
Just FTR so you can refer back to this:
(1) Easy to review, high quality MRs. 🤝
(2) Full responsibility. 🤝
(3) Declaration/Labeling 🤝 -- although, again I don't think LLMs are special here, it's a class of assistive technologies.
(4) Segregating contributors/judging them based on their preferences ❌
Best,
Moritz