Not at all, because it’s impossible to know for sure if committed code had some form of AI generated parts, AI assisted review, prototyping, etc.
By making it mandatory you can potentially alienate good developers who may feel their work ethics would be scrutinized negatively (like in these comments).
An LLM is just a tool. Some iterations have some value in some circumstances. In those cases it’s fine. But look around at the comments here and you’ll see many people basically accusing Debian of selling out. If a dev sees that reaction then they may not want to disclose their own use of LLMs.
Why would you not want to disclose though? Is it because of shame? Because you are unable to defend your choice? If it’s “just a tool”, is that not enough to defend your choice?
To be clear: the alternative policy we’re talking about isn’t “LLMs are bad, don’t use them”, it’s “Let us know when you are using LLMs”
I agree. Disclosure of A.I. use should be mandatory.
My main concern with A.I. use is its ability to hide incompetence. If a new agent introduces code that was entirely written by illegal-software that violates copyright law–A.I.–then that should be made clear, even if competent-programmers review the new inclusion and approve of it. Otherwise people are left with the impression that this new agent is a competent programmer. A.I. use–undisclosed–creates false reputations.
The disclosure being encouraged and not mandatory is purely to protect the egos of programmers currently utilizing A.I. products.
However I do respect their decision and I maintain projects should be self governing.
My main concern with A.I. use is its ability to hide incompetence.
You mean like tab-completion in modern IDEs? Shouldn’t devs know all the function calls and methods of the standard libraries of the language they’re programming in?
I do respect their decision and I maintain projects should be self governing.
Me too, but I also think that governance isn’t as simple as “we get to decide what we do”, it also interacts with how well the decision-makers understand their domain and their broader it sits in, both of which are potentially reduced as a consequence of relying on AI.
Also there is the possibility of AI tools dominating workflows and then getting ripped away (either as the corporates raise costs, or the bubble bursts and they collapse), leaving a project overwhelmed with a unmanageably large array of weaknesses. In that scenario self-governance starts to become irrelevant.
That last bit is a bad idea
Not at all, because it’s impossible to know for sure if committed code had some form of AI generated parts, AI assisted review, prototyping, etc.
By making it mandatory you can potentially alienate good developers who may feel their work ethics would be scrutinized negatively (like in these comments).
If you’re happy to use AI tools to develop, why would you not be happy to declare your use of those tools?
“Happy” is an odd choice of words here.
An LLM is just a tool. Some iterations have some value in some circumstances. In those cases it’s fine. But look around at the comments here and you’ll see many people basically accusing Debian of selling out. If a dev sees that reaction then they may not want to disclose their own use of LLMs.
this comment feels very reminiscent of the recent “if it was opt in nobody would opt in”
Sure. That’s what this is. Pointing out that a computer program can be used as a tool is definitely a parallel to privacy violations.
Why would you not want to disclose though? Is it because of shame? Because you are unable to defend your choice? If it’s “just a tool”, is that not enough to defend your choice?
To be clear: the alternative policy we’re talking about isn’t “LLMs are bad, don’t use them”, it’s “Let us know when you are using LLMs”
Yes, and because people might be afraid there going to be attacked for using it.
But this is impossible to enforce.
I agree. Disclosure of A.I. use should be mandatory.
My main concern with A.I. use is its ability to hide incompetence. If a new agent introduces code that was entirely written by illegal-software that violates copyright law–A.I.–then that should be made clear, even if competent-programmers review the new inclusion and approve of it. Otherwise people are left with the impression that this new agent is a competent programmer. A.I. use–undisclosed–creates false reputations.
The disclosure being encouraged and not mandatory is purely to protect the egos of programmers currently utilizing A.I. products.
However I do respect their decision and I maintain projects should be self governing.
You mean like tab-completion in modern IDEs? Shouldn’t devs know all the function calls and methods of the standard libraries of the language they’re programming in?
Me too, but I also think that governance isn’t as simple as “we get to decide what we do”, it also interacts with how well the decision-makers understand their domain and their broader it sits in, both of which are potentially reduced as a consequence of relying on AI.
Also there is the possibility of AI tools dominating workflows and then getting ripped away (either as the corporates raise costs, or the bubble bursts and they collapse), leaving a project overwhelmed with a unmanageably large array of weaknesses. In that scenario self-governance starts to become irrelevant.