Post B4gmfk2Ve9WshmNkrA by indutny@mean.engineer
 (DIR) More posts by indutny@mean.engineer
 (DIR) Post #B4gmfk2Ve9WshmNkrA by indutny@mean.engineer
       1 likes, 0 repeats
       
       I'm so appreciative of @bengl right now. Their PR that proposes adding policy on LLM-generated contributions is receiving lots of feedback from other project maintainers and has helped me uncover additional concerns about LLM: https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/62447Like, I haven't thought until yesterday evening that LLM written code is completely antithetical to MIT-license under which Node.js is written. LLMs are designed to destroy attribution, but MIT license is built on top of it.
       
 (DIR) Post #B4gmfkI6iA0RU9gDAW by zkat@toot.cat
       1 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @indutny @bengl dang, nodejs folks trying to do the right thing here.I "love" that the first thing LLM boosters go to is how it's "unenforceable", as if that was ever a concern when it came to whether people submitting PRs actually owned the rights to the code they submitted. I don't recall some massive discussion about "true authorship" besides "pinky swear".It just reeks of LLM boosters wanting really bad to just be deceitful motherfuckers.
       
 (DIR) Post #B4gmjSdgHbvPtfXgjA by indutny@mean.engineer
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @zkat @bengl I disagree with the “unenforceable” argument too, but I deeply respect contributors posting this comment. They are part of the driving force behind Node.js and I don't think they have ill intentions even though we are not in agreement on LLM use.
       
 (DIR) Post #B4gmjStHLcOyg2q92W by zkat@toot.cat
       1 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @indutny @bengl it's just a pattern I've seen consistently come up and it feels disingenuous precisely because it's not reflected in other places where it may be relevant. If you already can't trust the people you're working with, you've got bigger problems, you know?