LLM Policy for Rust Compiler

spprashant

Github just won't respond at all.

ares623

Oh no where is Bun gonna be ported to next?

7e

The poor Rust team is outgunned: they are getting PRs of great complexity. They can't even tell if the code is good or not. LLMs can generate really good code and they can generate very poor code. Most of the code I've seen is actually pretty good, but featureful and complex, and humans don't have the brainpower to understand it all. The Rust team needs LLMs to adjudicate LLM-generated code properly, but they can't afford them (there is no money in OSS) and they are afraid of being put out of a job. Thus this Luddite policy. I expect soon we will see Rust forks with a pro-LLM policy, and if those forks have AI agents reviewing PRs, the main Rust repo. will soon be irrelevant and all development of any note will happen on the forks, as they accelerate in quality and features exponentially. The Rust team will never be able to catch up to them.

nmg

> ## Other organizations > These are organized along a spectrum of AI friendliness, where top is least friendly, and bottom is most friendly. This section is an extremely useful reference

dryarzeg

> This policy is intended to live in Forge as a living document, not as a dead RFC. Oh... I can’t say for certain who wrote it, and I won’t make any definitive claims - personally, I tend to think it was probably mostly written, or at least conceived, by a man - but this sort of phrase… I get a nervous twitch every time I see it, even though it’s actually quite a clever rhetorical device. Hell... Maybe I just need a break; I don’t know, since I’m starting to see LLMs everywhere...

mw888

Here are the actual policies, not a comment: https://github.com/jyn514/rust-forge/blob/llm-policy/src/pol... It's in-line with the 'nanny' stereotype of the Rust community that they give you permission to act in a way they would never be able to verify anyways: > The following are allowed. > Asking an LLM questions about an existing codebase. > Asking an LLM to summarize comments on an issue, PR, or RFC... Like seriously, what's the point of explicitly allowing this? Imagine the opposite were true, you weren't allowed to do this - what would they do? Revert an update because the person later claimed they checked it with an LLM? The Linux policy on this is much superior and more sensible.

DennisL123

Does the policy fix the issue of many low quality PRs being submitted? Unlikely. Will it fix a related but different problem? Likely.

classified

This is highly interesting. It seems clear to me that a lot of thought and work went into this. If I ever were to write a similar document, I'm sure I could learn a lot from this one. Props to the authors and all involved.