[grayhatter]

I have an exceptionally strong, visceral, negative reaction to people who aren't offended by the arguments the author makes in this post.

Your patch was rejected because the maintainer objects to the source and tooling used to generate the patch. If you agree with the maintainers opinions or object because you wanna do it your way, does not matter.

Honesty didn't get your patch rejected, root cause analysis shows the origin of the rejection was the patch was LLM generated. If the author had decided to lie, but the maintainer still knew it was LLM generated, it would still have been rejected. Honesty isn't implicated at all, and framing it as such is also dishonest.

The title of the post can only exist if the author would gladly lie to get what he wanted ignoring the others involved in the process. That behavior is extremely disgusting.

> I don't care about what you want, so I'll gladly lie to you about my submission so that I get what I want... what you care about, and what you want don't matter!

-- Przemysław Alexander Kamiński, presumably?

I'm embarrassed by proxy that the author^ was willing to write this, and then publish it on the internet. Because this kinda behavior makes all of us working in and around software look bad. Please, adopt some personal ethics that include consideration and respect for others, and expend even a basic about of thought into if you're treating other humans with said respect. Because reading this, you're obviously not.

[josteink]

He made a patch in good faith, not knowing about these rules.

He’s point is that because he was coming at this with an honest, open approach he saw his work rejected.

His observation is that this will reward dishonest submissions which are NOT made in good faith. Ie rewarding the wrong things.

Incentives drives the outcome. What incentives does this give people?

[geocar]

> not knowing about these rules.

He didn’t look at the t&c for whatever model he was using and didn’t understand he had no copyright claim over its output?

He doesn’t have any rights to the code; he can’t assign them to the FSF.

> What incentives does this give people?

Hopefully to learn how to code so they can make their own contributions.

[grayhatter]

> Incentives drives the outcome. What incentives does this give people?

I understand this argument to be, if you stop people from doing something you don't want them to do to you, you're only incentivizing them to lie to you, before the do that exact same thing to you.

Is that the argument you're trying to make? Because I don't think the solution to wanting to exclude LLM codegen, is to ... not reject LLM generated patches because it might force other people to lie to get around the exclusion.

But, just to be clear, I think the argument that enforcing rules would induce someone to lie, is an insane argument to try to make.

[josteink]

I think a better frame would be «how could the maintainers have responded in a constructive, collaborative way upon learning about the tooling not being compliant with Emacs-standards, in a way which have helped land what was clearly a good faith effort aiming to make Emacs better?»

Outright rejecting the patches was IMO not a pragmatic or constructive choice and will drive the wrong incentives wether you morally approve of it or not.

[TurdF3rguson]

Entertaining rant, but he never said he was willing to lie, he was offering a hypothetical.

[grayhatter]

> but he never said he was willing to lie, he was offering a hypothetical.

I disagree with your assessment.

> First of all, I could’ve hidden the fact of LLM usage, and yet decided to declare it explicitly. By being truthful I already lost my footing. This alone makes the policy stupid. If admittance is punished it’s better to push submissions without admitting. It punishes integrity, not usage per se.

The author values getting what he wants over interacting fairly and honestly with others. Literally saying "it’s better to push submissions without admitting [the truth]".

I think your predictions are inaccurate, but will gladly acknowledge the facts do show the author decided not lie this time (perhaps because it was too late he already admitted and would have lied if he knew about the policy. Which does seem more inline with the recommendations in post). Unfortunately he was still willing to advocate and argue that honesty was the root cause reason his patch was rejected. I think generally speaking, you wouldn't willingly encourage others to lie if you weren't willing to lie yourself, would you?

[TurdF3rguson]

I don't think it's worth it in this case, it's certainly not clear to me who is in the wrong here. Lying is obviously problematic, but like I said, he didn't lie - it was purely hypothetical.