A maintainer. Apparently went into a hissy fit because people pointed out to him that he broke the rules. That said, the critics probably weren’t very nice to him either.
Ah, Linux drama.
BTW, the rules sound sensible to me:
"In this section, “AI” refers to generative artificial intelligence tools, including Large Language Models and similar technologies.
All contributions are expected to be made by humans. AI tools may be used for research and learning, but all content in contributions must originate from and be understood by the contributor. This includes code, documentation, issues, security reports, pull request descriptions, and comments in all Void Linux community spaces.
ALL usage of AI tools MUST be disclosed.
Do not bring AI review tools into pull requests.
Usage of AI-powered human-language translation tools is acceptable to facilitate contributions across language barriers."
Esp. this part: “contributions must (…) be understood by the contributor.”
I’m in a smaller community that sees a lot of AI-supported app development recently and while the outcome can occasionally be good, I’m not sure it’s worth taking those few good apples with the flood of vibe coded projects, and their “developers” that tend to get very defensive when simply asked about things.
Probably because it isn’t actually the important part. And also because he did, in fact, quote it in full before repeating the part he found important.
yeah… but in my opinion it is the important part… imo it is okay to use an llm to get a reference implementation and then you refactor it into aworking piece that you understand and comment afterwards
Okay, the “must be understood” is the important part when discussing what’s good about the rule, and the “must originate from” is the important part when discussing what’s problematic about the rule.
A maintainer. Apparently went into a hissy fit because people pointed out to him that he broke the rules. That said, the critics probably weren’t very nice to him either.
Ah, Linux drama.
BTW, the rules sound sensible to me:
Esp. this part: “contributions must (…) be understood by the contributor.”
I’m in a smaller community that sees a lot of AI-supported app development recently and while the outcome can occasionally be good, I’m not sure it’s worth taking those few good apples with the flood of vibe coded projects, and their “developers” that tend to get very defensive when simply asked about things.
Not saying this is the case here though.
On the rules, citing hperrin:
Great that people are working on that. And adopting it.
I think establishing new rules in a new territory will never happen entirely without conflict. Nice if people still behave like gentlemen.
why did you omit the important part of that quote
Probably because it isn’t actually the important part. And also because he did, in fact, quote it in full before repeating the part he found important.
yeah… but in my opinion it is the important part… imo it is okay to use an llm to get a reference implementation and then you refactor it into aworking piece that you understand and comment afterwards
Okay, the “must be understood” is the important part when discussing what’s good about the rule, and the “must originate from” is the important part when discussing what’s problematic about the rule.