Hi Greg,
Greg Hogan <[email protected]> skribis:
>> The other points delve into social, ethical, and legal issues. Legal
>> issues have been widely discussed already, but the rest much less.
>
> The last I have heard on legal issues are references to discussions on
> a private GNU mailing list.
Not from me. People can have private discussions, that’s okay; the
discussion that matters is public.
>> The “Motivation” section gives context, but what matters in the end is
>> the pledge.
>
> I agree with the pledge but disagree with some wording of the
> commitments.
To me the “commitments” is the pledge; looks like you meant to say you
disagree with the “Motivation” section, is that correct?
> Banning LLMs is not required to support the pledge, and package
> quality and licensing are general topics not specific to LLM-assisted
> code.
- Licensing is a general topic but LLMs challenge it in new ways—see
‘python-chardet’ etc.
- Package quality is not something that has been discussed, I believe.
- “Banning LLMs” is not what the pledge says; it’s more nuanced and we
can still work on it together.
I would encourage you to explicitly state what would make the GCD
acceptable for you, and what you make it ideal.
If you would prefer no regulation on LLM usage within the project,
please consider this comment:
https://codeberg.org/guix/guix-consensus-documents/pulls/13#issuecomment-16470989
Thanks in advance,
Ludo’.
