The rise of LLMs as a useful development tool over the last year or so has been significant. The power and flexibility of tools like Claude Code and ChatGPT have given a lot of functionality both to experienced developers and new developers alike. But there are trade-offs.
Rejecting AI output comments but accepting PRs, seems weird to me. Sometimes I want to say something and then feed it through an LLM to take off any aggression or confrontation.
They say that, in relation to the text of a PR, commit, forum post, or similar, “the output must be your own words, explanation, description, etc., not a verbatim dump of an LLM’s output”. If you must, it sounds like you could still use an LLM to identify any aggression or confrontation in your text, but then fix it yourself. The other advantage of that approach is that you’ll become more aware of your communication patterns, and how to remedy harmful ones.
And what about the people who use AI to help fix their English so that they’re clear in what they’re trying to say because English is their second or third language?
Do what you want, but in that case I think it’s even more important for language learners to learn from actual human speakers than to rely on AI as a crutch. You’ll learn English faster if communicate authentically, mistakes and all.
If what you’re communicating isn’t clear, then people will let you know and ask you follow-up questions, giving you the opportunity to improve.
“An exception will be made for LLM-assisted translations if you are having trouble accurately conveying your intent in English. Please explicitly note this (“I have translated this from MyLanguage with an LLM”) and, if possible, post in your original language as well.”
Rejecting AI output comments but accepting PRs, seems weird to me. Sometimes I want to say something and then feed it through an LLM to take off any aggression or confrontation.
They say that, in relation to the text of a PR, commit, forum post, or similar, “the output must be your own words, explanation, description, etc., not a verbatim dump of an LLM’s output”. If you must, it sounds like you could still use an LLM to identify any aggression or confrontation in your text, but then fix it yourself. The other advantage of that approach is that you’ll become more aware of your communication patterns, and how to remedy harmful ones.
It’s better to be aggressive and confrontational than to be slop.
And what about the people who use AI to help fix their English so that they’re clear in what they’re trying to say because English is their second or third language?
Do what you want, but in that case I think it’s even more important for language learners to learn from actual human speakers than to rely on AI as a crutch. You’ll learn English faster if communicate authentically, mistakes and all.
If what you’re communicating isn’t clear, then people will let you know and ask you follow-up questions, giving you the opportunity to improve.
From the general guidelines section of the post:
“An exception will be made for LLM-assisted translations if you are having trouble accurately conveying your intent in English. Please explicitly note this (“I have translated this from MyLanguage with an LLM”) and, if possible, post in your original language as well.”
They can read the output and edit in their own voice. ESL have been talking fine before LLMs got popular, they’ll be fine now too.
I’m speaking as an ESL that busted my ass to teach myself speaking a whole lot better than native speakers that take it for granted.
Maybe they want the aggression.