The AI Pascal’s Wager
Should you accept contributions generated by LLMs in your Open Source project?
I don't know where this article is going but if it opens with the following lines, how can it be taken seriously?
"Let’s put aside for a moment all the ethical/ecological/societal considerations about the use of generated code"
It goes on to claim a pragmatic point of view and I wonder: would anyone accept an article that puts aside the pragmatic point of view beforehand?
It's a cheap trick, even if the article possibly tries to argue against accepting LLM PRs, it just ignores most of the central concerns with this and thus plays into the hands of the "rationalist" camp that will always choose the most efficient path, no matter the fallout.
Maybe the rust-style LLM policy could've passed if we had that? Very nice writeup, I 100% agree. The LLM fatigue is a real thing, and all proponents argue like it's nonexistent.
- replies
- 0
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 2
@ploum
Hi again and sorry again for jumping on it that way. It just really struck a nerve because so many arguments open that way these days and it is so tiresome to me and Fedi is a place where I see it a lot less than somewhere else, hence I was eager to comment. I wasn't very friendly but I hope it came across that I was trying to be kind of constructive in spite of being really annoyed. (i admit i didn't do very well) Hence my second comment.
I thought about it a bit more and I really see a difference between writing something along the lines of this: "ethical/ecological/societal points of view forbid the use of LLMs (insert references), so let's also look at the pragmatic perspective".
Versus "let's put them aside" because it makes it look like a valid approach.
It's not unique to the discussion of LLMs. This happens the same way in discussions about e.g. fossil/nuclear energy.
