Of the 3 proposals, the 2nd/B seems to be more of an “informed consent” model while the other two are seeking a comprehensive exclusion. I hope earnest dialogue and driving to a broad consensus among significant contributors is forthcoming.

Notable are the endorsements, which are balanced over all three options, perhaps indicating only 1/3 are supportive of a more permissive position. If this represents core contributors, this could be worrisome: a clear majority favoring a exclusion, but yet a sizable portion of contributors who don’t want a ban. Losing 1/3 of core contributors would be a significant loss to the project.

▲

sigmoid10 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I wonder how long software projects will even be able to ban LLM use in an age where exploits are found by LLMs. Like, if you have two forks of Debian and one uses LLMs to fix exploitable bugs and the other one doesn't, the level of security they can offer will be worlds apart. And noone in their right mind would want to use the less secure one. Similar to how noone would want to drive a car that was 100% hand built by humans when we know that machines do a much better job at precision tasks. LLMs are just another tool in the end.

▲

goodmythical 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

There are a few of these "maintainer said no AI pulls, so we forked it" in the wild already and I am really interested to see how it all pans out.

Like, okay, sure, maintainer says AI bug monitoring is cumbersome. One fork stops reading the AI bug monitoring, the other leans in. Isn't the latter more likely to find/fix critical/performance/security issues?

>Similar to how noone would want to drive a car that was 100% hand built by humans

Though, of course, this highlights that the market will fragment itself given that there are in fact many humans who will outright refuse machine driven cars despite mounting evidence that they are vastly safer and more efficient in a growing number of situations.

We'll likely see both "individual who won't use AI assisted software gets hacked" and "individual who won't get in a robo-taxi kills jay-walker in broad daylight"

▲

AlexeyBrin 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> I wonder how long software projects will even be able to ban LLM use in an age where exploits are found by LLMs.

You can use an LLM to scan your human written code for exploits and patch the relevant ones yourself without any LLM code generation. An LLM is a tool, you can chose how you use it.

▲

throw101010 3 hours ago | parent [-]

The proposal A doesn't limit it to "use" only:

> with the use or assistance

Don't ask me how they would know you've used a LLM to "assist" you to find the exploit... I don't even know how they would definitely know if you used a LLM for the code to fix it either.

	▲	pixl97 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Just troll the fools that think like that... >I found this bug with an LLM, now you know and your mind can never be made clean, it's the fruit of the poison tree. You must never patch the bug.

▲

vouaobrasil 24 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

> And noone in their right mind would want to use the less secure one.

I mean, this is a perfect description of the prisoner's dilemma. Ins't it a shame that we keep playing that game? There's something seriously wrong if we just keep creating these new arms race scenarios. It's sickening.