Re: LLMs and Agents usage in the CCG

On Mon, Apr 13, 2026 at 9:18 AM Juan Casanova
<juan.casanova.undeceiver@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have been reading this list for a couple of months, but this is the first time I participate.

Welcome to the list, Juan. :) We're very happy to have you and your
input on the important work being done here.

> Thanks for your time. I find it funny because my tendency to long messages and being a first time participant might make others feel like I am the LLM here, arguing for disclosure of LLM use :P . No LLMs were used in making this email, for what it's worth.

FWIW, your response felt strongly human to me... and I found myself
nodding along in agreement with much of it.

Amir wrote:
> On the mailing list, keeping it human-only makes sense to avoid noise and maintain meaningful discussion. I would lean toward Option 3, with one addition: light disclosure of LLM assistance (for example, noting if it was used for structuring or language), so the group can apply appropriate scrutiny. LLMs and agents are tools we’ve built over time, and it’s important we continue to use them in line with their intended role—as assistants, not decision-makers—while keeping accountability firmly human.

What Amir wrote above resonates strongly with me. As I'm sure with a
number of you, my LLM use has been climbing steadily over the last
several years. It was cute at first, but there are some things I'm
doing with the various models today (mostly code / theory analysis and
refactoring) that I would be unable to do on my own (on the scale at
which I am doing it).

There are some work products where I feel like the output is mostly
mine (ideas, architecture, theory, etc.)... but there was very heavy
LLM usage (perhaps more than I'm giving the LLM credit for). The lines
are blurred for me... email is one place where I definitely do not use
LLMs... but specs, and code are certainly becoming increasingly
blurred and graphics/illustrations are an almost complete outsourcing
to LLMs.

I don't disclose that I use compilers, linters, macros, spell
checkers, scripts, and code coverage tools... and I'm pretty sure
we're going to eventually stop disclosing usage of LLMs as they
increasingly exceed human capabilities. I think we're all concerned
about others that outsource their thinking to LLMs, but perhaps that
could be better than what we have today, which is some outsourcing
their thinking to institutions that don't have their best interests at
heart? Perhaps this is the dawn of personalized thinking? And yes, it
is easy for that to slide into personalized coercion.

... but for now, I think I'm ok w/ mentioning when I use them when I
think others need to be aware (mostly because I'm concerned about
accidental slop, even though I've reviewed it multiple times, and I
need other humans to help me keep what's produced in check). I also
don't want others to feel what I feel when I realize I'm reading
LLM-generated content without being warned -- it feels like a lie by
omission; a minor betrayal -- and I have to reset the context in which
I'm reading the work, usually going all the way back to the beginning
and reading it knowing that it's LLM generated (which feels like it
takes much more effort to catch the subtle errors that make the entire
argument/architecture/theory fall apart).

From a concrete standpoint, this means disclosing medium-to-heavy LLM
usage in pull requests for specs and code. I'm not sure if I care if
LLM usage is disclosed when clearing up spelling, grammar, and flow as
long as the original content/concepts were written by a human.

Just thinking out loud, not suggesting any particular direction --
just mostly trying to get feedback from others so the Chairs can
establish a coherent policy for the community.

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
https://www.digitalbazaar.com/

Received on Monday, 13 April 2026 13:55:19 UTC