Here are the actual policies, not a comment:<p><a href="https://github.com/jyn514/rust-forge/blob/llm-policy/src/policies/llm-usage.md" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/jyn514/rust-forge/blob/llm-policy/src/pol...</a><p>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:<p>> The following are allowed.
> Asking an LLM questions about an existing codebase.
> Asking an LLM to summarize comments on an issue, PR, or RFC...<p>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?<p>The Linux policy on this is much superior and more sensible.
> 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?<p>Imagine if they just say "LLMs are banned" then there's a lot of ambiguity. So they specifically outlined that <i>generative</i> uses of LLMs are banned, and that non-generative ones are not banned (i.e. "allowed").<p>I think it's a poor choice of words on their part, but it makes sense (considering what their policy is). It's more of a "we're not disallowing use in these particular scenarios, so you can still use LLMs for these if you want". Remember: it's a big project, and if they don't <i>explicitly</i> state something then people <i>will</i> ask and waste everyone's time.
> ## Other organizations<p>> These are organized along a spectrum of AI friendliness, where top is least friendly, and bottom is most friendly.<p>This section is an extremely useful reference
Does the policy fix the issue of many low quality PRs being submitted? Unlikely.<p>Will it fix a related but different problem? Likely.
> This policy is intended to live in Forge as a living document, not as a dead RFC.<p>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...
Github just won't respond at all.
Oh no where is Bun gonna be ported to next?
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.<p>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.<p>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.
The term scope creep comes to mind. Programming languages do not need to grow exponentially 24/7, its okay to let it grow slowly and stay mature and secure. If Rust were too bleeding edge, the safety promises would corrode over time. I think a better use of some of those PRs is to focus on crates as proof of concepts for things that could benefit Rust if it were included either in the standard library, or just available as a crate you can use for programmer ergonomic reasons.
Please do fork Rust and maintain it for the LLM true believers. I’m sure the real rust team would be delighted to see fewer low-effort PRs.<p>Given what you’ve said above it would be an easy task ‘accelerating quality and features exponentially’, so you’ll soon be able to show them (perhaps within days!), the error of their ways.<p>Please go do it now, we’ll wait.
It doesn't really read like a Luddite policy.<p>Rust is already well past 1.0. At best an LLM could discover a vulnerability (and the human using it can file a patch) or can help a human improve ergonomics.
That's an ambitious conclusion, and not as overly so as some may think.<p>But I believe it is not the reason Rust adopted this policy, I think they just have a more basal and subjective dislike of AI irrespective of whatever truth you may have just cited.
> I expect soon we will see Rust forks with a pro-LLM policy<p>I sure hope so. I expect the end result will disprove the following:<p>> The Rust team will never be able to catch up to them<p>The AI jackasses have been braying in this key for going on a few years now, and there hasn't been one single time any of this breathless noise has resulted in something meaningfully superior. It's time to put up or shut up. Enough bullshit talk. If you can vibeslop a better Rust (or whatever), JFDI and leave everyone behind.
LLM delusion is insufferable. If all it takes is tokens to make a significantly better in programming language in logarithmic time why hasn't anyone done it?
As someone who's vibecoding my own self-hosted language (via a typescript to c++ transpiler and bootstrap), I can tell you mainline commercial models like Opus 4.7 aren't quite there yet. I'm getting 10KB source files balloon into 80MB outputs for now.<p>The main problem is that the the problem space is vast and highly interconnected, the LLM needs to reason about the entire language every time it suggest an architectural change, but it can't, so it suggests local changes that make sense to me - a language hobbyist - then runs into much more difficult problems down the road.<p>Maybe Mythos with a lot of (competent) human hand-holding and pre-design can do it.
Would love to see that happen, personally. All this power being held back by red tape. We need to unleash the beast.<p>What do you think is stopping anyone from starting a fork right now? Is it a licensing issue?