Hello Guix,

On 2026-05-03 at 22:18+02:00, Noé Lopez wrote:
> Untrusem <[email protected]> writes:
> > So that's why I wanted a way to know when a guix package
> > updates or gets added [...] that LLMs is being used
>
> That’s an interesting idea, I also agree that I would like to know what
> is made with LLM or not. Maybe we could start tracking this kind of
> things.
>
> I was also thinking that it would be good to have something like
> F-Droid’s anti-features. For things like using nonfree APIs or nonfree
> graphics.

I think package-properties is a good fit for this.
Our neighbor was discussing this matter a couple months ago [0]
and one option came up was overriding the license field.

I would like to be able to query a list of transitive dependencies
that include LLM output, which should be similar to other
graph traversals like refresh --list-dependent or graph --path.

[0]: 
https://public-inbox.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/[email protected]/t

On 2026-05-03 at 13:05-07:00, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> As a member of the guix kernel team, I regret to inform you that the
> linux kernel upstream uses AI/LLM to backport patches for all the
> versions of the linux-libre kernels we provide with guix.
>
> I think even the GNU Hurd development has started using some of these
> technologies, if you are looking for another kernel... that would
> (eventually?) have the same issues...

Sad news aside, let not make perfect the enemy of good.  I use
non-free firmware and drivers, but I still want to avoid using
other proprietary software, and would love some data and tooling
to make that easier.

On 2026-05-03 at 13:09-07:00, Ian Eure wrote:
> I also have some reservations about it being a package contributor's
> responsibility to do this; it can be difficult to know if an LLM
> is used in the first place[1].  Are folks contributing version bumps
> responsible for auditing the changes in the new version
> for the presence of LLM use?
>
> [1]: Some maintaners deliberately obscure presence and extent of 
> LLM tools in their projects.

Packagers are also responsible for auditing the changes
in the new version for the presence of bugs, so I think it's okay
if we miss things from time to time.

On 2026-05-03 at 13:09-07:00, Ian Eure wrote:
> I completely agree with you: users should have the freedom to run 
> software which doesn't contain LLM output.  However, the subject 
> is complicated, and I think requires a GCD.

Now that the discussion periods for GCD 6-7 are over,
I'm open to proposing a common stance regarding LLM.
Linking back to an earlier thread [2], I think it should cover
incorporating LLM ouput into Guix itself as well.
I like OpenJDK interim policy [3]:

> Oracle, as the corporate sponsor of the OpenJDK Community,
> is working to draft a full policy governing the use
> of generative AI tools in OpenJDK contributions.
> Oracle will propose that policy to the OpenJDK Governing Board
> in due course.  Until that policy is in place, the Governing Board
> has approved this interim policy:
>
> > Contributions in the OpenJDK Community must not include content
> > generated, in part or in full, by large language models,
> > diffusion models, or similar deep-learning systems. [...]
> >
> > Contributors in the OpenJDK Community may use generative AI tools
> > privately to help comprehend, debug, and review OpenJDK code
> > and other content, and to do research related to OpenJDK Projects,
> > so long as they do not contribute content generated by such tools.

> This interim policy aims to [...] limit their risks
> while we gain further experience that will inform the full policy.

If Oracle, the corporation memed as having more lawyers than engineers,
and a major stakeholder of the big statistics market, is voicing concern
over incorporating deep-learning models' output in their codebase,
I think we should listen.  As mentioned in the linked thread,
while we wait for legal advisories from the FSF or FSFE, a similar
temporary policy should be in place.

(Though I do not deny wishing that such temporary policy become
 effectively permanent, I believe my line of reasoning is objective.)

[2]: https://yhetil.org/guix-devel/[email protected]/t/
[3]: https://openjdk.org/legal/ai

Best wishes,
Phong

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

  • Package Updates a... Untrusem
    • Re: Package ... Vagrant Cascadian
    • Re: Package ... Ian Eure
      • Re: Pack... Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution.
        • Re: ... Ian Eure
          • ... Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution.
            • ... Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution.
    • Re: Package ... Noé Lopez
      • Re: Pack... Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution.
        • Re: ... Yarl
        • Re: ... Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution.
          • ... Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution.
        • Re: ... Greg Hogan
          • ... Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution.
            • ... Greg Hogan
              • ... Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution.
                • ... Greg Hogan
                • ... Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution.
                • ... Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution.

Reply via email to