I never got the impression this was supposed to be an unquestionably good thing even in the original post. I think the point was to get people to look at the workflows they’d built for very strictly guiding LLMs and pointing out that “just trust the network” was starting to look like it was now sort of working or at least going to work pretty soon. I think the name was meant as “yeah I know the code is not gonna be great, try just not caring about that.” Sort of an acknowledgment of the tradeoff.

score 1 · canonical

D is still around!

score 1 · canonical

That’s the sort of sentence I’d have loved to see in the summary, not the explanation.

score 1 · canonical

I mean, tbh I wouldn’t contribute to this project because this is a weird policy in the sense that it only actually mandates two things:

• Do not use LLMs to translate or improve communication
• “Carefully consider” ESQ issues before using them.

Does that mean I can make LLM PRs? Well they’re telling me I am “likely to be blocked”… is that a no? Will they say, “fair cop, it’s a good LLM PR but we’ll block you now”? I think this policy is written so carefully and defensively that it doesn’t actually tell the contributor what to do and what not to do. It’s hard to have an opinion on what it’s saying because it’s not actually saying much.

score 1 · canonical

I love METR but that study has done massive damage to the discourse. (Through very little fault of METR, to be clear.)

score 1 · canonical

Not only can you retrain it, hundreds of people have already done so.

score 1 · canonical

I think everyone is getting extremely legalistic about other projects’ AI policies on their behalf. No one wants the actual output of the AI, especially unchecked. But if you read the output and actually understand it - a pretty minimal bar for a contribution - and then fix the thing yourself, it has none of the associated issues with AI PRs.

Well great, then they can write that in their policy instead of “absolutely no AI”!

score 1 · canonical