Ian Eure <[email protected]> writes: > There are two issues: > > - Should Guix allow contributions including LLM output? > - Should Guix label software it packages as containing LLM output?
I think both questions share a premise worth pushing back on: that the tooling used to write code is something a distribution should care about. The four freedoms are about the artifact, not the process. Run, study, modify, share. They say nothing about the editor, the compiler vendor, or whether the author used grep or ripgrep. "Was an LLM involved" isn't a useful proxy for the things we actually care about. Licensing? We review for it. Plenty of LLM output is original, and plenty of hand-written code is a copy-paste from Stack Overflow or intentional copyright violation. So what would the label actually warn users about? Not correctness, not licensing, not security; we test, audit, and review for those. What's left is a sociological signal: this author touched a tool some of us dislike. That's not a property of the software, and I don't think it belongs in package metadata. Once you start labelling software by properties of its authors rather than properties of itself, it's hard to say where that stops. -- Thanos Apollo ☧ https://thanosapollo.org
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
