LISP AGAINST THE (LL)MACHINE (#📎)
Artyom Bologov <lisp-against-the-machine@aartaka.me>

…

sort of.

note: {
  This list was originally assembled by Zyd <zyd.lol/lisp-against-the-machine.html>.
  But he’s no longer responsive, and things have changed considerably.
  So I decided to take it on me to re-host and update the list.
  I hope Zyd gets back and takes over.
  And I’ll be happy to remove this page when this happens.
}

Every Lisp, Scheme, and Lisp-adjacent project listed is a non-toy implementation
that is at least somewhat active. When I (Zyd) first wrote this article (2026-03-12),
most Lisps did not have a policy or even public stance on LLM contributions. In
such cases I (Zyd) posted to their bug trackers or discussion lists to ask. Most
maintainers kindly responded.

Every link is either a document or issue stating the project’s LLM policy, or a
link to an open issue. Roughly categorized according to how strongly for or
against LLM contributions.

If I’m (Zyd, Artyom) missing a project that should be listed, lemme know
(Artyom,) <contact.txt>
(Zyd) <zyd.lol/contact.html>.

STRICTLY AGAINST (#strictly-against)

  - Fennel <git.sr.ht/~technomancy/fennel/tree/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#contribution-transparency>
  - STklos Scheme <github.com/egallesio/STklos/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#submitting-your-contribution>
  - Clojure <clojure.org/dev/contributor_agreement#_no_generated_code>
  - ECL <gitlab.com/embeddable-common-lisp/ecl/-/work_items/826>
  - Chicken Scheme <wiki.call-cc.org/contribute#regarding-patches-created-using-llm-assistance>
  - Guile Scheme <codeberg.org/guile/guile/commit/d5592f82b6b7e01f1b15508e539329164586c7bf>

STRONGLY AGAINST (#strongly-against)

  - Loko Scheme <gitlab.com/weinholt/loko/-/work_items/56#note_3153627022>
  - Scheme 48 <codeberg.org/s48/scheme48/issues/1>

WEAKLY AGAINST (#weakly-against)

  - GNU CLISP <gitlab.com/gnu-clisp/clisp/-/work_items/62> against on a specific reading of copyright law
  - Emacs Lisp <lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2026-03/msg00425.html> temporarily against LLMs, waiting for official policy
  - Hy <github.com/hylang/hy/discussions/2686> maintainer recommends against LLM contributions, no actual policy

HESITANTLY ACCEPTING (#hesitantly-accepting)

  - Chibi Scheme <github.com/ashinn/chibi-scheme/issues/1090>
  - Cyclone Scheme <github.com/justinethier/cyclone/issues/564#issuecomment-4051986199>
  - Gambit <github.com/gambit/gambit/issues/991#issuecomment-4055083312>
  - Gauche <github.com/shirok/Gauche/issues/1238>
  - Gerbil Scheme <github.com/mighty-gerbils/gerbil/discussions/1419#discussioncomment-16120788> LLM generated code potentially in source tree
  - Clasp <github.com/clasp-developers/clasp/issues/1734>
  - CCL <github.com/Clozure/ccl/issues/550>
  - Janet <github.com/janet-lang/janet/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#llms-tool-usage-and-transparency>
  - Skint <github.com/false-schemers/skint/issues/37#issuecomment-5646557175> LLM generated code potentially in source tree

ACCEPTING (#accepting)

  - Bigloo <github.com/manuel-serrano/bigloo/issues/144>
  - Coalton <github.com/coalton-lang/coalton/discussions/1808>
  - Kawa Scheme <gitlab.com/kashell/Kawa/-/work_items/123#note_3156481608>
  - Sagittarius Scheme <github.com/ktakashi/sagittarius-scheme/issues/338#issuecomment-4062858016>
  - Jank <github.com/jank-lang/jank/discussions/758> doesn’t accept external LLM contributions but permits usage by core developers
  - Racket <github.com/racket/racket/issues/5466> LLM generated code in source tree
  - SBCL <sourceforge.net/p/sbcl/mailman/sbcl-devel/thread/20260227155122.1f2c07d6cf1ecf561d38cf3b%40coiloptic.org> LLM generated code in source tree
  - Carp <github.com/carp-lang/Carp> LLM generated code in source tree

UNKNOWN (#unknown)

  - Chez Scheme <github.com/cisco/ChezScheme/issues/1028> at least one maintainer is against, another skeptical, open issue
  - MIT Scheme <lists.gnu.org/archive/html/mit-scheme-devel/2026-03/msg00000.html> open issue
  - ABCL <github.com/armedbear/abcl/issues/737> open issue
  - LFE <github.com/lfe/lfe/discussions/515#discussioncomment-16110542> open issue