@homegrown I don't think any of that changes my argument. Like, it's far from a given that LLM use in a project is going to displace and de-skill contributors. And even if it does, de-skilling often has as much or more to do with how the contributors choose to use LLMs than anything done at the project level. That is to say, people can use LLMs in a careful way that improves their coding ability, or in a thoughtless way that replaces it. (I have personal experience with both 😅) Both extremes and everything in between get lumped under the heading of "allows LLMs", but it doesn't necessarily make sense to treat them all identically. And only a small fraction of this LLM use is going to clash with the definition of FOSS. Like, even if LLM use is displacing and de-skilling contributors, there's a big difference between that and making it so a project is fundamentally unmaintainable without LLMs.
And if you want to avoid promoting projects that use LLMs because of the environmental impacts and your concerns about plagiarism, you can certainly do that; it's just that, again, that goes beyond the definition of FOSS. (Except for the copyright argument I brought up in the previous post.) I could offer an argument as to how many people who use LLMs don't see those ethical issues in the same way - not just "people don't care about ethics", it's nuanced - but it doesn't really make a difference to my main point, which is that what you're considering is a more restrictive criterion than just FOSS and should be described accordingly.
Aug 17, 2026, 5:29 PM