[dead]
LLM Policy for Rust Compiler
71–80 of 94 posts
Re: LLM Policy for Rust Compiler
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
if an LLM says "I can't open a PR automatically until you solicit a review from a maintainer", i think that's good actually. likewise for proactively following the rest of the rules.
It's not the submitter who solicits, but the reviewer. They can't give code, AND THEN get approval, they need to be asked specifically for an llm created PR.
Re: LLM Policy for Rust Compiler
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point here if you read contributor comments is mainly to allow people to shut a PR down without having claims of “unfairness” because some other PR wasn’t shut down. These are “moderation policies” in the style of old internet forums, their primary purpose is to clear up ambiguity and make maintainer’s (moderators) lives easer. The birth of vibe coding has seen interactions on public FOSS projects increasingly re…
> probably because no maintainer really wants to be a moderator, but thats where its naturally landed unfortunately. Yeah this is autistic bunk. If you run an open source project, dealing with people is part and parcel of it, disagreements as well.
[dead]
Re: LLM Policy for Rust Compiler
#74Re: LLM Policy for Rust Compiler
#75Re: LLM Policy for Rust Compiler
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Like seriously, what's the point of explicitly allowing this? Imagine the opposite were true, you weren't allowed to do this - what would they do? Imagine if they just say "LLMs are banned" then there's a lot of ambiguity. So they specifically outlined that generative uses of LLMs are banned, and that non-generative ones are not banned (i.e. "allowed"). I think it's a poor choice of words on their part, but it make…
Y tho? It's already bad enough a programming language wants to play politics (doesn't matter what my politics are if I want to code in the c "community"), now they're taking purely emotional stances like "AI evil"
> now they're taking purely emotional stances like "AI evil"
But they aren't? Nowhere in the document it says this; in fact, it says the opposite - that they don't want to make a moral judgement.
> It's already bad enough a programming language wants to play politics (doesn't matter what my politics are if I want to code in the c "community")
It also doesn't matter what your politics are in the Rust community. My personal politics don't agree with the majority of prominent Rust contributors either, and that's fine. It doesn't (and hasn't) stopped me from being able to use Rust for over a decade now. Ignore politics and just engage on a purely technical level, and you'll be fine.
Re: LLM Policy for Rust Compiler
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're trying to avoid a Boy Who Cried Wolf situation. If they get swamped with 100 bugs that turned out, after they investigate them to be hallucinations then it's likely they will ignore or lose in the noise a real bug. A llm generated bug that pretends it was a human created bug would be trying to abuse that presumption of validity, and therefore considered a dick move.
> If they get swamped with 100 bugs that turned out, after they investigate them to be hallucinations then it's likely they will ignore or lose in the noise a real bug. But theyre saying if they're 100 correct bug reports it's still banned. That's hysterical That's the baby out with the bathwater.
No, you read incorrectly. Using LLMs to discover bugs is allowed given that you personally verified them.
Re: LLM Policy for Rust Compiler
#78Does the policy fix the issue of many low quality PRs being submitted? Unlikely. Will it fix a related but different problem? Likely.
The people who submit low quality LLM-generated PRs often don't bother to read the policies first, but at least it will be easier to reject those.
While we surely hope that at least some people will read and honor the policy, of course we know not everyone will. But creating a policy gives us teeth. Currently sending such PR is not disallowed, provided it doesn't fall in the thin area of some previous policies about slop PRs. With this policy, doing it will be escalated to the moderation team. First time you'll get a warning, second time you'll be banned from the project.
Re: LLM Policy for Rust Compiler
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
Y tho? It's already bad enough a programming language wants to play politics (doesn't matter what my politics are if I want to code in the c "community"), now they're taking purely emotional stances like "AI evil"
> now they're taking purely emotional stances like "AI evil" But they aren't? Nowhere in the document it says this; in fact, it says the opposite - that they don't want to make a moral judgement. > It's already bad enough a programming language wants to play politics (doesn't matter what my politics are if I want to code in the c "community") It also doesn't matter what your politics are in the Rust community. My per…
> It also doesn't matter what your politics are in the Rust community
Largely true, apart from the trans issue. Refuse to agree a man is a woman because he says it's true, and you're a bigot
Re: LLM Policy for Rust Compiler
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
> now they're taking purely emotional stances like "AI evil" But they aren't? Nowhere in the document it says this; in fact, it says the opposite - that they don't want to make a moral judgement. > It's already bad enough a programming language wants to play politics (doesn't matter what my politics are if I want to code in the c "community") It also doesn't matter what your politics are in the Rust community. My per…
> It also doesn't matter what your politics are in the Rust community Largely true, apart from the trans issue. Refuse to agree a man is a woman because he says it's true, and you're a bigot
You don't have to agree to treat people with respect. Using someone's preferred pronouns doesn't hurt you.