@david_chisnall The fact that this actually happened still boggles my mind!

@noisytoot @richardfontana @LordCaramac @cwebber @ossguy @bkuhn I don't agree that abolishing copyright would abolish DRM laws, but I, at least, agree we should get rid of both laws.

@ossguy @firefly_lightning @davidgerard @wwahammy @cwebber so is the theory "we should accept people who have been abused by big tech and think LLM usage is ok, and we must help them understand why it's not", or is "we must accept LLM code commits because there's people who think they're ok and the longterm damage is a risk we'll just need to figure out later"?

I keep thinking it's the very reasonable first one, which I don't think is up for debate. But you and Bradley keep implying it's the second, which *is* up for debate.

@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.

@bkuhn @linux_mclinuxface @josh @wwahammy @cwebber @burnoutqueen @ossguy ah ha! thank you! It did feel off.

@bkuhn @karen @josh @wwahammy @kees @ossguy I think the amount of confusion the post has caused might warrant a redraft because I'm deeply trying to understand the point, but I can't. I've asked a few times: Why was the post made? It reads like it's advancing a narrative but all proposed readings have been rejected?

@ossguy @firefly_lightning @wwahammy @cwebber I am unfortunately working on pretty delicate projects so taking the time out to join the sessions isn't in the card. I'm just trying to understand the core goal of the post, like, what it's *for*.

@ossguy @firefly_lightning @wwahammy @cwebber So your point is that we've already lost and we should simply accept the torrent of slop? I'm really trying to understand.

Can you restate the purpose and audience of the post?

My three questions I have about this post really boil down to: Who should be accepted, who should be accepting, and what limits should be allowed on that acceptance?

Maybe you don't have an answer, and that's cool to state, but it's weird to wander into the room, say something inflamatory and then say you don't know what you meant.

@ossguy @josh Yeah - I guess - does that person exist at a scale where we can distinguish them? And is attempting to find them worth the burn out and DDoSes? What's the cost to finding/identifying these people?

@wwahammy @josh @ossguy Yeah - I'm confused on where that proposed group is. And I'm confused where they came from, and why one would make an argument three years into a flood that proposed a group of people, but didn't define them, while also making the argument look like you were attempting to speak to people about a topic that's very polarized?

@bkuhn @karen @josh @ossguy Sorry - I don't believe that you can enter into a discussion that is three years old and act like there's no previous text.

I'm not presupposing *anything* - I'm attempting to read your text and finding meaning in it that seems to resonate with others.

I guess - what's your vision of the person who needs to be reached that isn't? And How is subjecting software maintainers and web admins to harassment and burnout worth meeting those people?

@bkuhn @karen @josh @ossguy I think the problem is one of not really looking at the conversation as it's happening. It's why my post was focused on a car analogy. Even if those people have good intention, the tools they're bringing in destroy the community.

I think that the problem is that the idea of not accepting people who are using the tools feels like an attempt to smuggle in the tools. If someone has chosen to use claude code for a while and now wants to contribute helpfully - fine. But how many of those people are there? Is there a cohort of LLM users who want to learn coding skills? Or are they wanting to *contribute* using their *LLM skills*?

I think Denver doesn't prove the existence of the cohort so is being read as attempting to defend something else.

@bkuhn @karen @josh I think we need to separate 'the people using it are bad" from "commit from people using it are bad".

There's a huge difference, and no one is claiming the first

@bkuhn @wwahammy @cwebber I'm probably busy, but I'll try. I'm talking to Denver elsewhere