The policy summarizes itself this way: It's fine to use LLMs to answer questions, analyze, distill, refine, check, suggest, review. But not to create.

Saying that "it's fine" seems a little overly broad, because sometimes it isn't, but I suppose that by "fine" they simply mean that it's not forbidden by the policy. A more complete summary would also mention that where it is allowed, disclosure of LLM use is required.

Personally, on the few occasions where I've resorted to querying an LLM it's been very much the same kind of experience that using Stack Overflow used to be. It's a quick way to see one way that other people have done some thing, but you wouldn't want to rely on it being the right way.

[–] fruitcantfly@programming.dev 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I guess that the purpose of the one-line summary is to communicate the spirit of the policy. The details that you are asking for, is what constitutes the majority of the the policy document itself. While you could probably summarize the body of the policy in more detail, having multiple lists with different levels of details would likely lead to confusion. So I think that the approach they've taken makes sense

[–] kbal@fedia.io 3 points 2 days ago

As was said elsewhere on the Internet:

Don't get me wrong, I welcome this policy, I just wish the "one line zinger" was a little more detailed, because if you come away from the article without reading on (or, more realistically, if secondary sources pick up this quote without the surrounding context), one could easily get a wrong idea.