I was redirected here from Github Issues, so I will reiterate what I stated there:
LLM use places an undue burden on the environment and low-wage workers in pursuit of relatively small gains in productivity.
Additionally, introducing LLM-generated code into free software risks violating the license due to rampant plagiarism by LLMs.
Zig’s policy, which is simple and to the point, may be a good blueprint.
Note that my Github Issue includes links which this forum prohibits me from posting. See the original Github Issue for my sources.
To address Ghabry’s reply:
We are well aware of the problems LLMs cause, such as ignoring copyright, aggressive crawling etc.
There are contributions to this repository which were created with AI assistance (which wouldn’t even have existed without the AI as the contributors weren’t experienced programmers). They were all reviewed and rewritten to match our project standards.
While lowering the bar for entry for contributing may be a good thing, I do not believe this remedies the ethical and legal concerns mentioned above.
I can assure you that we will reject low quality code and obvious AI slop such as #3480.
Good stuff.
Plagiarism is also not allowed but this was already hard to proof even in the pre-LLM-era.
I agree that it would be difficult to enforce, but an explicit policy acts as a deterrent.
For our OpenRTP (free assets that are supposed to replace the copyrighted RPG Maker 2000 assets) we enforce a No AI policy. Artists often have a much stronger opinion against AI than developers so we respect this.
This is part of the reason I made this suggestion. EasyRPG Player is mainly used today to increase access to games made by artists who likely reject LLM use. Collective Unconscious, which bans AI-generated contributions, actually expects players to run the game with EasyRPG Player. It seems contradictory to me for a tool so proximate to artists to be developed with the use of LLMs.
Note that I am not a contributor to EasyRPG Player or its related projects. I am just a user of the program who does not want to see it tainted by LLM use. I respect any decision Ghabry and the other developers make in regards to this, as it is my understanding that the software is largely developed for free.