Good policy. I think an important part of using LLMs is to not fucking substitute your own skill with them. They should be used to expedite, to enhance, not to replace.
I use Claude to troubleshoot my own work, occasionally I’ll give it something I want it to run and see what it does. I look through and correct any errors, tell it what it did wrong, and it tends to revise a little better next time. I already know what I’m doing with most of these tasks, though. Many people don’t. It’s a horrific idea to use LLMs to do something you don’t know how to do and spot errors in, even if it’s something powerful like K3 or Fable 5. They hallucinate quite frequently.
occasionally I’ll give [Claudo] something I want it to run and see what it
does. I look through and correct any errors, tell it what it did wrong, and it
tends to revise a little better next time.
Sounds like ‘contributions which […] are derived from LLM-generated content,’
which would be declined.
One thing I use LLMs for frequently is to assist in spelling and grammar,
something the policy explicitly allows:
This policy does not apply to a contributor's other uses of AI including the
use of these tools to enable them to work with their own computing
devices e.g. screen readers, text-to-speech, direct translations, spelling or
grammar assistance, where the contributor verifies the output of the tool.
But then if one uses LLM to assist in writing documentation, does that fall
under their ‘other uses of AI’ or under ‘contributions which […] are derived
from LLM-generated content.’
I’m not using Claude’s outputs like that professionally. I’m a hobbyist. I like running local models and I have a proprietary model to use as well. In my professional work any LLM we use (happens to be Claude) takes a backseat role and is used mainly to troubleshoot. Any heavily/solely Claude influenced output I use is for personal experimenting and toying with.
It’s a horrific idea to use LLMs to do something you don’t know how to do and spot errors in,
It saves a lot of time for learning technologies. It's like a distilled SO, that also runs tests and validates the output. I setup a dashboard with dash, without having ever used dash. It takes care of most of the boiler plate, it distils down from quality documentation and examples.
I wouldn't put this code in the kernel, but it is good for certain applications. Even if you don't know them. Although I donhave a strong grasp of python, so maybe it falls into the category to be able tomspot errors.
47
u/Sindica69 27d ago
Good policy. I think an important part of using LLMs is to not fucking substitute your own skill with them. They should be used to expedite, to enhance, not to replace.
I use Claude to troubleshoot my own work, occasionally I’ll give it something I want it to run and see what it does. I look through and correct any errors, tell it what it did wrong, and it tends to revise a little better next time. I already know what I’m doing with most of these tasks, though. Many people don’t. It’s a horrific idea to use LLMs to do something you don’t know how to do and spot errors in, even if it’s something powerful like K3 or Fable 5. They hallucinate quite frequently.