👀 … 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 @ossguy I have to admit that I am pretty surprised by this post. Not in terms of being welcoming to newcomers, which is something I have advocated for and made the center of all of my FOSS work.
However, the post says the following:
> I encourage all of us in the FOSS community to welcome the new software developers who've adopted these tools, investigate their motivations, and seriously consider cautiously and carefully incorporating their workflows with ours.
While the sentence which follows acknowledges that "seasoned software developers understand the benefits and limitations of LLM-assisted coding tools", there are two big things I expected at least acknowledged:
- Many maintainers are facing *burnout* over the situation. However, I agree that addressing this in terms of norms is something we can consider
- The biggest thing I am surprised to not see addressed at all is the licensing and copyright implications(cotd)
welcome the new software developers who’ve adopted these tools
how about No
incorporating their workflows with ours
yea No
get a backbone maybe?
-
@bkuhn @silverwizard @wwahammy @cwebber I am not sure if I'm a known enough entity to post this here really, but I think it's worth pointing out that if you allow it into the community, who within the community are you pushing out? Because it would be unrealistic to think that accepting LLM into the community won't actively be pushing a portion of the community away. The other thing I think useful to consider is the reasons why it would push people out and to consider those reasons too, because I'm concerned that the fear of not be welcoming is overcoming the desire to have a safe community? Idk if that resonates so please feel free to yell me outta here if I'm overstepping.....
@firefly_lightning @silverwizard @wwahammy @cwebber @bkuhn I think we're seeing a bifurcation similar to the Free vs Open divide.
I *do* believe ethical LLMs are _possible_ and would still be useful. None of the current ones meet any of those ethical requirements well enough though. Their *utility* however is real. Outright rejection is a valid stance; but some are likely to be "pragmatic", just like they were about "Open" and weaker licenses.
-
(2/5) … In https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2026/apr/15/eternal-november-generative-ai-llm/ ,
Denver's key points are: we *have* to (a) be open to *listening* to people who want to contribute #FOSS with #LLM-backed generative #AI systems, & (b) work collaboratively on a *plan* of how we can solve the current crisis.Nothing ever got done politically that was good when both sides become more entrenched, refuse to even concede the other side has some valid points, & each say the other is the Enemy. …
@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)
-
@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)
@bkuhn @wwahammy @cwebber @silverwizard I do not want to read LLM output, full stop. There are people who want to me to read it. What can I compromise here?
I do not want to demonize LLM users, as some want to genuinely contribute and hope to improve the software. But their red line is that they want to use their LLM to do so, as they are (usually) "having so much fun with it doing previously impossible stuff".
The truth is that nobody wants to discuss the topic, as everyone is getting tired of this shit, which is why adding a notice stating that the project rejects any LLM-tainted contributions is probably the best to avoid wasting everyone's time.
-
@MisterMaker @josh @silverwizard @ossguy @bkuhn @karen @wwahammy
I am reminded of Kernighan’s Law: because debugging is twice as hard as writing code, writing code as cleverly as possible makes you, by definition, not smart enough to debug it.
So I really don't want the LLM writing clever code.
But yes, now we have to rent "thinking".
All the more reason to have FOSS LLM models to resist rentier capitalism.@kees @josh @silverwizard @ossguy @bkuhn @karen @wwahammy It just needs to output more code than there are humans that can maintain it and we lost.
So basically as long as those LLM are free or almost free, we are doomed.
We can have OpenSource LLM we just have to give up copyright. Kinda of issue tho. -
https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2026/apr/15/eternal-november-generative-ai-llm/ now reflects what I thought was posted hours ago. Sorry for the confusion.
You all got an insight into how much you have to draft & redraft to consider difficult policy questions. Anyone who works in policy drafted a dozen things that were not quite right before getting it right.
Anyway, if you still think it's terrible, I refer you to all my other posts from this evening.
@ossguy @josh @wwahammy @linux_mclinuxface @burnoutqueen @cwebber @silverwizard @mjw @mmu_man
@bkuhn @ossguy @josh @wwahammy @linux_mclinuxface @burnoutqueen @silverwizard @mjw @mmu_man Thanks for the replies. Last night I posted my frustrations and then went to see a movie with a friend and then promptly fell asleep. I see the discourse kept moving afterwards.
I continue to have thoughts, which I will collect and distribute either here or in a blog post later. But I appreciate the replies.
-
@bkuhn @wwahammy @cwebber @silverwizard I do not want to read LLM output, full stop. There are people who want to me to read it. What can I compromise here?
I do not want to demonize LLM users, as some want to genuinely contribute and hope to improve the software. But their red line is that they want to use their LLM to do so, as they are (usually) "having so much fun with it doing previously impossible stuff".
The truth is that nobody wants to discuss the topic, as everyone is getting tired of this shit, which is why adding a notice stating that the project rejects any LLM-tainted contributions is probably the best to avoid wasting everyone's time.
@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.
-
@bkuhn @ossguy @josh @wwahammy @linux_mclinuxface @burnoutqueen @silverwizard @mjw @mmu_man Thanks for the replies. Last night I posted my frustrations and then went to see a movie with a friend and then promptly fell asleep. I see the discourse kept moving afterwards.
I continue to have thoughts, which I will collect and distribute either here or in a blog post later. But I appreciate the replies.
-
One of *many* arguments against: codebases substantially contributed to by LLMs will develop a tolerance for complexity that is not conducive to being maintained by anything *other* than an LLM.
-
@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 -
@wwahammy @silverwizard @firefly_lightning @cwebber @ossguy yeah, "great question! come over to crime scene 2 for an answer perhaps!" has never been a good look.
it was presented as human written text. The human who signs their name to it should be able to answer text-based questions about it in written form.
-
… 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.
