👀 … https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2026/apr/15/eternal-november-generative-ai-llm/ …my colleague Denver Gingerich writes: newcomers' extensive reliance on LLM-backed generative AI is comparable to the Eternal September onslaught to USENET in 1993.
-
@bkuhn @wwahammy @cwebber There seems to be some oversimplification happening here; I don't think people using LLMs are the enemy but as @silverwizard said by analogy (assuming I have been mentioned for the retoot, which I understand but find a bit inquisitive BTW), I do think LLMs are the perfect medium for destroying free software and free software communities (let alone the rest of the world).
It is easy to say that we should not be entrenched, but my main issue with this position is that there is no form of "meeting in the middle" that works here, apart from caving in. (continued)
@mathieui
I agree FOSS projects should make their own policies. Some will (& should!) have a zero-tolerance abstinence policy on any contribution that has even been slightly interacted with any LLM-backed generative AI systems.
Yet, even among SFC projects, some asked us to help them create a more nuanced policy.
Should we just kick those projects out of SFC, or have a nuanced, humans-only conversation?
It's ok if you do not want to join that, but we'd also be glad to have you.
Cc: @tito @ossguy -
@mathieui
I agree FOSS projects should make their own policies. Some will (& should!) have a zero-tolerance abstinence policy on any contribution that has even been slightly interacted with any LLM-backed generative AI systems.
Yet, even among SFC projects, some asked us to help them create a more nuanced policy.
Should we just kick those projects out of SFC, or have a nuanced, humans-only conversation?
It's ok if you do not want to join that, but we'd also be glad to have you.
Cc: @tito @ossguy@bkuhn @mathieui @tito @ossguy i think it is good to have a nuanced conversation, but still be stern in that this unethical technology will not be allowed. the ethical issues of it are just too big, it would almost be as bad as allowing proprietary software in, i would say
education is important, and it is important to first educate and give some time before making a decision, but still be stern about it, as this is a deep ethical issue where we should be having a zero-tolerance
zero-tolerance here would mean not allowing the project to endorse or use any genai. if usage of it is snuck in, try and revert it to the best ability possible. if it was used before, do the same. but having some genai commits in is not that important, to me
of course, mistakes may be made. we should not be scrutinizing commits very heavily and going on witch hunts. but genai usage, for code, assets, writing, docs and anything else, must not be allowed
what's important to me is the stance of the project going forward. to be against it completely -
… https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2026/apr/15/eternal-november-generative-ai-llm/ …my colleague Denver Gingerich writes: newcomers' extensive reliance on LLM-backed generative AI is comparable to the Eternal September onslaught to USENET in 1993. I was on USENET extensively then; I confirm the disruption was indeed similar. I urge you to read his essay, think about it, & join Denver, me, & others at the following datetimes…
$ date -d '2026-04-21 15:00 UTC'
$ date -d '2026-04-28 23:00 UTC'
…in https://bbb-new.sfconservancy.org/rooms/welcome-llm-gen-ai-users-to-foss/join
#AI #LLM #OpenSource@bkuhn Ok commenting on the revisions.
I don't think there are billions of new software developers. I think that's unfair, but it's less important.
I think also that this revision still does not engage with a core question of *how* would one deal with this community. marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=17… This is my go to example of "someone shows up and adds LLM code". This is a person in clear violation of policy.
I know the article is an attempt to bring people into discussion - but it fails slightly - most obvious - it sets some times and doesn't necessarily take people's time into account. Everyone in this thread has said it's a bad time. Which I mean, isn't great. But more important - it presupposes that accepting people using LLMs is a goal, so the discussion seems like it already has a conclusion and now wants to discuss next steps - but hasn't demonstrated its conclusion. Maybe I'm wrong but that's how I'm understanding it.
-
@mathieui @wwahammy @cwebber @silverwizard Would it be different if someone copy-pasted a few separate snippets from Stack Overflow? It feels like if people are unwilling to understand what their code does, that's one thing, but making a hard line even before we know that is perhaps too far.
@ossguy @wwahammy @cwebber @silverwizard Yes it would be different because they would not do it, since copypasting snippets from SO is not a gratifying experience, does not have a self-reinforcing feedback loop, and usually does not build or pass tests.
SO does not excel at producing the appearance of competency, nor is it shoved down our throats at an unprecedented pace, so I both have less moral qualms about letting people do it, and less technical objections with it as it does not pretend to produce cohesive programs or do away with the need of understanding.Not to say that copy pasting from SO is good, but LLM-driven contributions are that much lower.
-
@mathieui
I agree FOSS projects should make their own policies. Some will (& should!) have a zero-tolerance abstinence policy on any contribution that has even been slightly interacted with any LLM-backed generative AI systems.
Yet, even among SFC projects, some asked us to help them create a more nuanced policy.
Should we just kick those projects out of SFC, or have a nuanced, humans-only conversation?
It's ok if you do not want to join that, but we'd also be glad to have you.
Cc: @tito @ossguy@bkuhn @tito @ossguy I understand the need and do not intend to throw stones at the SFC here at all, I have diverging ethical considerations and am way too tired of it all (particularly writing non-FOSS software at work in the current LLM-crazed atmosphere) to even think about joining an oral conversation about it, in a language I am somewhat fluent but not articulate in.
I'm all for welcoming volunteers who want to do work on FOSS projects, but that means onboarding and doing actual work; if I wanted to run Claude on my code to do stuff, I don't need other people to do that, so what would be the point of recruiting volunteers ?
-
@bkuhn @tito @ossguy I understand the need and do not intend to throw stones at the SFC here at all, I have diverging ethical considerations and am way too tired of it all (particularly writing non-FOSS software at work in the current LLM-crazed atmosphere) to even think about joining an oral conversation about it, in a language I am somewhat fluent but not articulate in.
I'm all for welcoming volunteers who want to do work on FOSS projects, but that means onboarding and doing actual work; if I wanted to run Claude on my code to do stuff, I don't need other people to do that, so what would be the point of recruiting volunteers ?
Actually, I'm absolutely 🤮y re: talking about LLM-backed generative AI too! I've been talking about it for 4 years now
:
https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2022/feb/03/github-copilot-copyleft-gpl/But, I'm senior policy wonk in FOSS, & it's my day job. Everyone has crap they gotta do in their day job that isn't their favorite, & this is mine.
Speaking of bad stuff at day jobs: many people's day jobs MANDATE LLM-backed AI usage. Such a mandate is definitely immoral; it should always be the developers' choice.
-
@bkuhn @ossguy The surprising thing about saying "seriously consider cautiously and carefully incorporating their workflows with ours" is that it doesn't address at all my *biggest* fear: the copyright status of LLM generated contributions seems currently unsettled.
I know there's been assertions to the contrary floating around: the Supreme Court deferred to a lower court in the US. However that is not the same thing as the Supreme Court making a specific decision. And internationally, the copyright situation of output is even murkier... it will take a long time for this to settle.
Does Conservancy not think this is the case? I would be surprised if so, but perhaps you all have an interpretation that I am not currently aware of.
If there *is* concern, then we hit a serious risk: we may be seeing many contributions with legal status which has *yet to be determined* entering seasoned codebases. And this worries me a lot.
-
@richardfontana @bkuhn @ossguy In which of the 5 million ways I could parse that sentence do you mean it?
-
@bkuhn @mathieui @tito @ossguy i think it is good to have a nuanced conversation, but still be stern in that this unethical technology will not be allowed. the ethical issues of it are just too big, it would almost be as bad as allowing proprietary software in, i would say
education is important, and it is important to first educate and give some time before making a decision, but still be stern about it, as this is a deep ethical issue where we should be having a zero-tolerance
zero-tolerance here would mean not allowing the project to endorse or use any genai. if usage of it is snuck in, try and revert it to the best ability possible. if it was used before, do the same. but having some genai commits in is not that important, to me
of course, mistakes may be made. we should not be scrutinizing commits very heavily and going on witch hunts. but genai usage, for code, assets, writing, docs and anything else, must not be allowed
what's important to me is the stance of the project going forward. to be against it completelyThese are good ideas. I hope you can come to one of the chats and share them, but I've bookmarked your post so I am sure the ideas get considered.
-
First, I speak for myself, not SFC on this account. I work for SFC, but my words are not SFC's words by default. I *often* am unable to convince SFC to take policies or positions that I want.
By nuanced, I mean avoiding two sides showing up like it's a protest where one site shouts "NO AI" and the other side shouts "ALL AI ALL THE TIME" won't get us anywhere at all.
I'm very close to the "NO AI" side, but I'm a few steps toward other direction.
-
Normally, when someone is invited to a real-time public forum and would prefer to submit written comments, they would ask how to do so rather than being sarcastic and cruel. How odd.
In seriousness, in parallel @ossguy added info on just what you're asking for at the top of https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2026/apr/15/eternal-november-generative-ai-llm/
-
@richardfontana @bkuhn @ossguy In which of the 5 million ways I could parse that sentence do you mean it?
@cwebber May I please introduce you to the cryptic @richardfontana oracle.
He's often right and predicts the future well, but figuring out what he means is the riddle.
I've had this moment with @richardfontana more than a dozen times at least.
-
@josh @silverwizard @ossguy @bkuhn @karen @wwahammy
I can understand having an absolutist position against LLMs. I find that most arguments are either irrelevant to me or directly map to existing arguments about late-stage capitalism. So for me, there's nothing novel to object to about LLMs.
So with that in mind, I find "all contributions derived from LLMs should be rejected" to be misguided. I look at things like the bug fixes coming out of CodeMender (back in Feb, which is an LLM lifetime ago), and I am a huge fan. Fixing stuff found by a fuzzer:
https://issues.oss-fuzz.com/issues/486561029It's a small example, but it's an area that humans alone have not been able to remotely keep up with. (There are hundreds of open syzkaller bug reports, for example.) Gaining tools that will help with this is a big deal, and I'm glad for the assist.
-
@glitzersachen @josh @silverwizard @ossguy @bkuhn @karen @wwahammy @xgranade
I consider the cognition impairment hazards to overlap with the existing manipulation/critical-thinking hazards that capitalism depends on, with advertising being probably the most dangerous example (both explicit and implicit manipulation of many cognitive systems: confidence, selection, recency, etc etc).
IMHO LLMs are "just" a subset/extension of this existing problem. And I categorize it there because I think the defenses against their negative impacts are very similar.
-
@glitzersachen @josh @silverwizard @ossguy @bkuhn @karen @wwahammy @xgranade
I consider the cognition impairment hazards to overlap with the existing manipulation/critical-thinking hazards that capitalism depends on, with advertising being probably the most dangerous example (both explicit and implicit manipulation of many cognitive systems: confidence, selection, recency, etc etc).
IMHO LLMs are "just" a subset/extension of this existing problem. And I categorize it there because I think the defenses against their negative impacts are very similar.
@kees @josh @silverwizard @ossguy @bkuhn @karen @wwahammy @xgranade
> to overlap with the existing manipulation/critical-thinking hazards that capitalism
I think it's more, not only the manipulation part. LLMs actively corrode skills of the users. Not by by not using them. No, actually worse.
I hope you have heard about this possibility (whether you believe in it or not).
-
@glitzersachen @josh @silverwizard @ossguy @bkuhn @karen @wwahammy @xgranade
I consider the cognition impairment hazards to overlap with the existing manipulation/critical-thinking hazards that capitalism depends on, with advertising being probably the most dangerous example (both explicit and implicit manipulation of many cognitive systems: confidence, selection, recency, etc etc).
IMHO LLMs are "just" a subset/extension of this existing problem. And I categorize it there because I think the defenses against their negative impacts are very similar.
@kees @glitzersachen @josh @silverwizard @ossguy @bkuhn @karen @xgranade I think you are wildly underestimating the cognitive hazards. Like I hesitate to even say "wildly underestimating" because that phrase is not strong enough.
-
@kees @glitzersachen @josh @silverwizard @ossguy @bkuhn @karen @xgranade I think you are wildly underestimating the cognitive hazards. Like I hesitate to even say "wildly underestimating" because that phrase is not strong enough.
@wwahammy @kees IMO you're both right.
LLM-backed gen. AI is a dangerous tool w/ potential to not only atrophy the skillsets of experienced developers *but also* lead newcomers to *never develop those skills*.
Our charge is to create policies that encourage extremely disciplined use of these systems.
I support decriminalization of recreational substances. But, such has to come with major funding for addiction support. IMO the analogy is apt.
@glitzersachen @josh @silverwizard @ossguy @xgranade -
@kees @josh @silverwizard @ossguy @bkuhn @karen @wwahammy @xgranade
> to overlap with the existing manipulation/critical-thinking hazards that capitalism
I think it's more, not only the manipulation part. LLMs actively corrode skills of the users. Not by by not using them. No, actually worse.
I hope you have heard about this possibility (whether you believe in it or not).
@glitzersachen @josh @silverwizard @ossguy @bkuhn @karen @wwahammy @xgranade
> LLMs actively corrode skills of the users
Yup, very aware. It's a specific instance of what I still see as a larger critical thinking erosion happening all around us.
-
-
@glitzersachen @josh @silverwizard @ossguy @bkuhn @karen @wwahammy @xgranade
> LLMs actively corrode skills of the users
Yup, very aware. It's a specific instance of what I still see as a larger critical thinking erosion happening all around us.
@kees @josh @silverwizard @ossguy @bkuhn @karen @wwahammy @xgranade
I suspect (as some scientists do as well) that this is not a cultural, but a neurological phenomenon. So I think this is really on a totally different level.
The skill erosion I am talking about has nothing to do AT ALL with critical thinking.
Best case it's just that if of two synaptic circuits (use the translation tool vs retrieve from memory) the one which wanted to activate, but then got not chosen, is actively deleted or weakened. My understanding is that this is how biological brains work / learn.
The worse alternative is that the output of LLMs has some yet not sufficiently described hidden quality which poisons neuronal networks that process them.
One hint in this direction is, that LLM models, who consume the production of other LLM models in training, collapse. That's a clear indicator that on some level LLM output is observably different from human language production, though we as humans have on average a hard time telling the difference.
And this is what I am talking about: Not a loss of cultural techniques or of learned skill by atrophy or not being taught anymore, but the poisoning of neuronal networks by input they cannot firewall because they have not evolved to recognize it as a hazard.
