Seems ironic that a blog post describing GHC's AI policy, from a contributor to GHC, which expresses agreement with GHC's AI policy, itself directly violates GHC's AI policy (points P1 and P4)!
I don't understand how this violates point 1, and I assume by violating point 4 you mean this essay is LLM assisted but the unnamed authors (Serokell PR?) don't disclose that. I'm not as certain that this post is AI written - it might just be "written by PR committee voice".
I admit I don't have ground truth here, but the whole thing reads to me as very clearly AI generated. For what it's worth, Pangram agrees. In my view, this style of blog post does not "prioritise people and community" as "Generated text should not be relayed as a substitute for the contributor’s own judgement".
When the content is AI-generated, it's very hard to suss out what, if any, human judgement was involved.
I mean, yes [the] use articles is difficult for speakers of [the] Slavic languages, but then you normally see it like "we want to build code base", whereas this reeks of LLM voice.
To the authors: please include a few words giving context on what a GHC is so people don't have to seek that info out before trying to understand what you're saying
Didn't slow me down too much but was still a hassle.
Seems ironic that a blog post describing GHC's AI policy, from a contributor to GHC, which expresses agreement with GHC's AI policy, itself directly violates GHC's AI policy (points P1 and P4)!
I don't understand how this violates point 1, and I assume by violating point 4 you mean this essay is LLM assisted but the unnamed authors (Serokell PR?) don't disclose that. I'm not as certain that this post is AI written - it might just be "written by PR committee voice".
I admit I don't have ground truth here, but the whole thing reads to me as very clearly AI generated. For what it's worth, Pangram agrees. In my view, this style of blog post does not "prioritise people and community" as "Generated text should not be relayed as a substitute for the contributor’s own judgement".
When the content is AI-generated, it's very hard to suss out what, if any, human judgement was involved.
The website itself looks Claude-heavy. The link to the PR team actually links to the developers, all of whom are not native English speakers.
Considering that, the article is just too bland and polished and also goes into too much historical detail, which LLMs like to do.
> Review is the scarce resource
> Maintainer time is the main constraint.
I mean, yes [the] use articles is difficult for speakers of [the] Slavic languages, but then you normally see it like "we want to build code base", whereas this reeks of LLM voice.
Most important one is human communication.
Use AI as much as you want, for research, writing code, reviewing code, etc.
But please, keep communicating on a human level. We are slowly loosing valuable communities when only bots are arguing with each other.
The original guidelines sound more nuanced:
https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/wikis/contributing/AI
To the authors: please include a few words giving context on what a GHC is so people don't have to seek that info out before trying to understand what you're saying
Didn't slow me down too much but was still a hassle.
[flagged]