[joshjob42]

Or that GNU updates a policy that will very rapidly go from probably net silly/mildly contestedly useful to completely ridiculous in a year or two. Not allowing LLM code will be basically turning down the work of the worlds best programmers running at 50x speed in couple years, and will functionally doom any software project that enforces such a policy.

[MarsIronPI]

The problem is that some GNU packages, Emacs among them, have a policy that copyright of the code must be assigned to the FSF. This policy exists because the FSF and GNU have gotten legal advice to the effect that all owners of a project must sue together to sue against copyright violators. So I don't forsee this policy changing while LLM output is not copyrightable.

[agentultra]

Doubt that. If you couldn’t write it yourself you can’t get an LLM to do it for you. So unless you’re attracting the 50 best software developers you’re getting middling to miserable results.

[tom_]

We shall see.

[vlian2088]

that policy should only ever be relaxed towards legacy contributors and those they can vouch for.

otherwise, allowing sloptributions opens the gates to a myriad you-know-who who used to submit pull requests for ESL rewrite of two sequences in README.md and now submit chatgpt-generated refactors - which waste even more human time - just so they can proudly put "open source contributor" on their resumes.