On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 11:07:19AM -0400, brian cully wrote: > > What would be costly to revert is the *lack* of any form of regulation > > on genAI use in Guix." > honestly, this sentence is weird and i cannot figure out a logical way > to parse it: you can't revert the lack of a thing that never existed. > reversion > requires a previous action to be undone. there has been no action, there > can be no reversion.
I think the sentence is simply elliptic. What is meant is: "It will be difficult to revert the consequences of there being no regulation" - namely, once we have a number of LLM coded contributions, these will be almost impossible to rip out again. Andreas
