From: D. Ben Knoble Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2026 18:10:47 GMT Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] SubmittingPatches: allow responsible AI assistance Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20261007142954.31761-1-scott@gitbutler.net> On Wed, Oct 7, 2026 at 10:35 AM Scott Chacon wrote: > > After the AI discussion at the contributors' summit [1], I'd like to submit > a concrete alternative for allowing AI generated work responsibly. This moves > us closer to Linux's approach: use the tools you find helpful, but take > responsibility for what you send. If you'll forgive me going a *bit* off-topic, I'd like to point interested readers towards some starting points for fascinating historical reading. It turns out, folks have questioned the use of AI and tools for a long time, and we have a body of writing that examines the impact tools have on us and we on them. So there's really no such thing as "just a tool", in an important sense :) Some starting points for going deeper are linked in the following articles (on my personal blog, but most of the thinking and references belong to others): - https://benknoble.github.io/blog/2026/09/02/tool-dialogue/ - https://benknoble.github.io/blog/2026/09/20/turkle/ - https://benknoble.github.io/blog/2026/09/21/once-more/ And relatedly, some reading notes on folks studying what it's like to actually *use* LLMs (albeit not exactly in our context): https://benknoble.github.io/blog/2026/10/02/reading-notes-configuration-work/ I don't think this has much bearing on the conversation about Git's policy other than to say: I don't think we ought to justify our use by saying it's "just a tool like any other"---not because it's unlike other tools so much as because the tools we choose and use matter; they affect us and the people around us. (I do appreciate that Scott's proposal has elements of taking responsibility for what you produce. At RacketCon last weekend, a maintainer put it a bit differently: "Review scales less than code; manage your own backpressure.") Somewhat more on the policy side, there is also the (polemically written, but valuable nonetheless?) "AI Pascal's wager" (https://ploum.net/2026-10-01-pascal_wager.html). To quote the conclusion (note: "abandon your project" *also* seems like a fear-mongering the stance the author tries to reject from AI boosters, but let's try to take the rest of the argument in good faith in spite of that): > While mass marketing is trying to instil a Fear of Missing Out hysteria, the most rational and pragmatic approach is to strongly reject all AI-generated contributions to your projects. For now. > > Someday, we might realise that LLMs are doing good in the world, that they are evolving toward ethical, reliable, sustainable solutions, and that people who use them are happier (try to read that sentence again without rolling your eyes). If that really happens, you could always change your AI policy. It will cost you nothing. > > But if you let the slop in now, you may regret it forever… You may be forced to abandon your project. > > On the other hand, if you refuse AI-generated contributions to your project right now, the worst very hypothetical regret you could ever have is "I should probably have done it sooner". > > The conclusion is simple: If you are AI-agnostic, the pragmatic course of action is to strongly refuse any AI-generated contribution to your project. "Wish we'd done it sooner" is definitely the boat I'd, personally, rather be in down the line.