> No LLMs for brainstorming and then sharing the results of that brainstorming, even if you create the prose.

I can understand the no automated AI contribution point of view, but going overboard with the above that is also completely unenforceable makes the policy look dumb.

▲

janice1999 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Unenforceable - sure, but it's interesting and I see the logic. While LLMs are extremely useful, I find they homongenise things. Claude text is instantly identifiable and now all my co-workers presentations and docs sound like it. I'm sure that extra effort helps differentiate things (so many LLM generated sites look the same so not many people put in the effort).

A project without everyone putting the same filter between them and the work they submit might help a project evolve in interesting and different ways.

	▲	quasarj an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I kinda wish I could identify it like you guys. Then again, I might be more depressed if I could.

▲

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

> ...is also completely unenforceable...

It's exactly as enforceable as when projects require you to swear that you can legally assign copyright of your submissions to the entity that runs the project, and/or swear that your submissions don't infringe on anyone's patents, and/or -as the ReactOS project does- swear that you've never seen the code that the project is reimplementing.

If someone swears that they're conforming to the rules and you later find out that they lied, then you ban them forever, publicly announce why, and -if needed- purge their contributions and do your best to alert affected users about the tainted versions. These sorts of policies work for the same reason ordinary doors and door locks work: most folks aren't profoundly antisocial shitbags.

▲

8note 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

it is enforceable, just the wrong rule.

the rule is ultimately "dont submit stuff where only your llm session knows whats going on"

if you brainstorm with an llm, then rewrite the llm prose but have no understanding, youve still broken the rule.

if you understand what it suggested, why, and so on, then you do know whats up, and thats unenforceable, but who cares

	▲	handoflixue 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It's not enforceable, because the people in charge don't have any knowledge of whether I consulted an LLM while writing this comment. You said it yourself - the enforceable policy is a a different, and much more reasonable policy. If the rule is "ultimately" something else, you can in fact just make that the rule. Or include a parenthetical explanation. Rules are the ideal place for being pedantic and detailed! That's the whole point of rules - ultimately, the rule is the rule that was actually written down. Not anything else.