Post #3381106
2026-06-23 12:21 UTC
@pointlessone@status.pointless.one @tomekw@functional.cafe I believe you are correct. However, the way they handled that situation (with the moderation policy) and the fact that OpenAI is now a foundation member make me less trusting in Rust's governance going forward.
They didn't allow any community input into the core issues at hand.
Additionally, a big issue for me is the ecosystem, which has been embracing LLM-generated code more in Rust's case as OpenAI etc. have been pushing it there.
It's not like I'm not going to use any libraries, especially with Rust where crates are commonly pulled in with large dependency trees.
Replies (1)
-
@pointlessone@status.pointless.one 2026-06-23 12:29
@liberty@mathstodon.xyz I think it was a right decision to heavily restrict scope of discussion on that particular PR. The ethical arguments are well known and there's no convincing people one way or the other if they already don't hold that position (any position). Raising those concerns would've quickly devolved into a massive fight that would’ve not moved the actual policy in any way. Cutting that off allowed adoption of at least some policy. Maybe it's not ideal, not to anyone's taste but it's a policy where there was none before. @tomekw@functional.cafe