Human Emacs

Emacs as a free software project focuses on empowering its users without compromising its ethical principles. As users of Emacs, we are interested in ensuring that we can continue to use it and contribute to it in good faith in the future. 作为一个自由软件项目，Emacs 致力于在不妥协其道德原则的前提下为用户赋能。作为 Emacs 的用户，我们希望确保未来能够继续以诚信的态度使用并贡献于该项目。

Background

背景

Living thru 2026 as a software enthusiast has been a constant stream of betrayals; it seems like every week we’re faced with the news that another program developed by people we thought we could trust has succumbed to the LLM onslaught. We have watched as even stalwarts like Vim and rsync have aggressively adopted LLM-driven development and alienated their core user base, leading to forks like vim-classic: https://vim-classic.org/ 作为一名软件爱好者，2026 年的生活充满了不断的背叛；似乎每周我们都会面对这样的新闻：我们曾以为可以信任的人所开发的程序，又屈服于大语言模型（LLM）的冲击。我们眼睁睁看着像 Vim 和 rsync 这样的中流砥柱也积极拥抱 LLM 驱动的开发，疏远了它们的核心用户群，从而导致了像 vim-classic 这样的分支出现：https://vim-classic.org/

The current leadership of the Emacs project has indicated that LLM-based contributions will not currently be accepted to the project, which we are glad to see. However, this stance is a temporary measure that is only meant to hold us over until the GNU project finalizes their policy on LLM-based contributions: “We are awaiting the decision by the GNU Project on these matters, which will define the policy for all the GNU packages, and in the meantime we don’t accept LLM-generated code, as a precaution. […] Such policy discussions and decisions are not for the Emacs project to make, they are global for all the GNU packages, and so here is the wrong place to look for them.” https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2026-03/msg00425.html Emacs 项目目前的领导层已表示，目前不会接受基于 LLM 的贡献，我们对此感到欣慰。然而，这一立场只是一个临时措施，旨在维持到 GNU 项目最终确定其关于 LLM 贡献的政策为止：“我们正在等待 GNU 项目就这些事项做出决定，这将定义所有 GNU 软件包的政策。在此期间，作为预防措施，我们不接受 LLM 生成的代码。[…] 此类政策讨论和决定并非由 Emacs 项目做出，它们适用于所有 GNU 软件包，因此这里不是讨论这些问题的地方。” https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2026-03/msg00425.html

We are concerned that this upcoming GNU policy may not hold Emacs to the high ethical standard that GNU has historically held. Given the overwhelming negative externalities of large language models, it’s concerning that we haven’t seen clear direction around this yet, and we are worried that when a policy does arrive it may not protect us from these problems. 我们担心即将出台的 GNU 政策可能无法让 Emacs 保持 GNU 历史上一直坚持的高道德标准。鉴于大语言模型带来的巨大负面外部效应，我们至今尚未看到明确的指导方针，这令人担忧；我们担心当政策最终出台时，可能无法保护我们免受这些问题的影响。

Intent

意图

Therefore we are here to declare our intent to use and develop a version of Emacs that is free from LLM-generated contributions regardless of whatever policy GNU decides upon. We invite them to weigh the costs and do the right thing, in which case we will continue to support them. But if they are not willing to do so, we will continue to use and develop an LLM-free version of Emacs anyway, even if it is not GNU Emacs. 因此，我们在此声明我们的意图：无论 GNU 最终决定何种政策，我们都将使用并开发一个不受 LLM 生成贡献影响的 Emacs 版本。我们邀请他们权衡利弊并做出正确的选择，如果是这样，我们将继续支持他们。但如果他们不愿这样做，即使它不再是 GNU Emacs，我们也将继续使用并开发一个无 LLM 的 Emacs 版本。

It is not without hesitation that we drop the F-bomb (fork) here. Forks of Emacs have historically been very contentious and have not always had a good deal of success. However, in the case that GNU Emacs accepts LLM-generated contributions, we do not feel like we have much of a choice; giving up using Emacs for many of us would feel tantamount to giving up on computing altogether, or at least giving up on the parts of computing that bring us joy. 我们并非毫不犹豫地抛出“分支”（fork）这个词。历史上，Emacs 的分支一直极具争议，且并不总是取得成功。然而，如果 GNU Emacs 接受 LLM 生成的贡献，我们觉得别无选择；对于我们许多人来说，放弃使用 Emacs 等同于放弃整个计算，或者至少是放弃了计算中带给我们快乐的那部分。

We also note that even if the top level GNU policy fails to address this problem, there is no reason Emacs maintainers cannot have additional policies on top of GNU’s; contrary to the claim in the mailing list thread above there would not be any conflict in making the temporary ban permanent. 我们还要指出，即使顶层的 GNU 政策未能解决这个问题，Emacs 维护者也没有理由不能在 GNU 政策之上制定额外的政策；与上述邮件列表讨论中的说法相反，将临时禁令变为永久禁令并不会产生任何冲突。

Motivation

动机

The Guix consensus document “Standing up for human crafting” does a great job of describing the motivation of why we require such a policy for a program that we rely on as much as Emacs. (Though the fact that they did not have the foresight to place a temporary ban the way Emacs did means that they felt forced to leave some unfortunate exceptions in their policy.) We feel the harms are clear enough that it’s not necessary to enumerate them afresh here; please refer to that document if you wish to read it laid out in detail. Guix 的共识文档《捍卫人类创作》（Standing up for human crafting）很好地描述了我们为何需要为像 Emacs 这样依赖的程序制定此类政策的动机。（尽管他们没有像 Emacs 那样有远见地实施临时禁令，这意味着他们被迫在政策中留下了一些令人遗憾的例外。）我们认为其危害已经足够清晰，无需在此重新列举；如果您想详细了解，请参阅该文档。

Not Under Discussion

不在讨论范围内

We are not here to discuss whether LLMs are effective at what they are claimed to be able to do; their effectiveness is not at all relevant to the question of whether their use can be part of a principled software movement dedicated to user empowerment. 我们在此并非要讨论 LLM 在其声称的功能上是否有效；它们的有效性与“其使用是否能成为致力于用户赋能的原则性软件运动的一部分”这一问题毫无关联。

We are not here to discuss “open weight” models; these are still built on a foundation of companies destructively mining the web from data centers that wreck communities. Such models cannot exist without exploitation. When a model can be fully trained by end users using data that was collected with consent, then we can talk about that, but right now that is nothing but science fiction and speculation. 我们并非要讨论“开放权重”模型；它们仍然建立在公司从破坏社区的数据中心中破坏性地挖掘网络数据的基础上。没有剥削，这样的模型就无法存在。当一个模型能够由最终用户使用经同意收集的数据进行完全训练时，我们再讨论这个问题，但目前那不过是科幻小说和臆测。

We are not here to discuss how bad-faith contributors can lie about the provenance of their patches. This risk is not new; bad-faith contributors have always been able to lie about the licensing and copyright implications of a patch. It is enough to treat LLM-generated patches the same as other forms of plagiarism. 我们并非要讨论恶意贡献者如何对其补丁的来源撒谎。这种风险并不新鲜；恶意贡献者一直以来都能对补丁的许可和版权影响撒谎。将 LLM 生成的补丁视为与其他形式的剽窃行为同等对待就足够了。

Organizing

组织

Discussion takes place on the mailing list and on the #human-emacs channel on Libera Chat. You do not have to join the mailing list to post to it. 讨论在邮件列表和 Libera Chat 的 #human-emacs 频道进行。您无需加入邮件列表即可向其发送邮件。

Signatories

签署人

(List of names omitted for brevity) （名单从略）

[Your name here] [在此处添加您的名字]

To add your name (and optionally a URL), please post to the mailing list or ask in the #human-emacs chat. See the source for this site. 要添加您的名字（以及可选的 URL），请发送邮件至邮件列表或在 #human-emacs 聊天室中询问。请参阅本站源码。