3 ms·

Whether you agree with the policy or not, the way it's written is good. It just states the rules neutrally. See https://gcc.gnu.org/ai-policy.html https://gcc.g

Whether you agree with the policy or not, the way it's written is good. It just states the rules neutrally. See https://gcc.gnu.org/ai-policy.html https://gcc.gnu.org/ai-policy.html. In various projects I see AI policies that state not only the rules, but also their (moral) justification. I think that's worse, because I can agree to the rules, but that does not mean I subscribe to your point of view.

rand27384 2mo ago
On other hand, what about people who don't understand the purpose of the rule and thus don't agree with it and might not entirely follow it, until they read the justification, upon which they change their mind. Or, even if they don't agree after reading the justification, they see that it is not unreasonable and follow it out of respect for the project and community. If they have no idea of the purpose, that seems less likely. Lots of software devs are totally disconnected to things like ethics, there are people who contribute to GNU but have no idea what free software is or what the basic purpose of the GPL is. That is fine, but it also means that it is probably a good idea to have text explaining the spirit/justification of a rule like this along with the letter of it. Also, I'd say a good half of the justifications against accepting LLM contributions are not moral.