> We welcome all contributors to the community even if they have not yet followed our policies; we should guide such contributors on how to do so.

Kudos to the GNU project for their attitude.

Their way of putting it is funny. I like this person's opinion, but I disagree with it. It's just their own framework, but I think it could also serve as a foundation for building other things.

Speaking of PRs, honestly, I've done the same thing before—it was just a one-line fix, but I asked the LLM to add 30 lines of tests just to look more professional

Once the 3 big ones start using LLM to review/accept the work for speed reliability sake, who knows what is going to happen.

Meanwhile, I don't know who quotemstr is, but they don't sound sane in any of the exchanges in this thread.

at some point, what's stopping people from lying or make the code like human writing one ????

(Extra fun if the AI generated compiler is under BSD licence.)

Ofc, it's less fun to accept that many of them are probably bots, but whatever.

The moderating should focus on good user participation, and a reputation to give old users leeway. I'd be as specific as requesting new users to respond as succinctly as possible to avoid AI ranting

The starting point of GNU was that Unix was expensive and costly for research labs, so they set out to build a free alternative that users could control from the ground up.

So if LLMs are useful, shouldn't we be building a free LLM ecosystem where users can run, study, and modify them, rather than letting a few companies control access to models, execution, environments, and data processing?

Of course, it's natural for organizations to drift from their original mission as they get older.

But judging by GNU's early history, the logic that:

1.LLMs themselves are bad because companies control them,

2.Writing code with AI isn't real programming,

3.Only human-written code is truly free.

This logic seems a bit flawed. After all, compilers, debuggers, and automated builds all automated tasks that humans used to do manually. And the GNU project itself created tools like Make and GDB so that programmers could work at a higher level.

If LLMs can reduce repetitive coding, documentation browsing, translation, test generation, and understanding legacy code, then that seems perfectly aligned with the next goals of free software. Making knowledge accessible to more people rather than keeping it locked up as tacit knowledge held by a few experts.

I guess when organizations grow large, they inevitably attract people who don't fully align with the original purpose

Fork it into Rust or something.

This is such a fire quote