Re: GCC LLM policy adopted

--=-=-=
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Gard Spreemann [31/Jul 10:56am +02] wrote:
> Gard Spreemann <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Russ Allbery <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> Sean Whitton <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>> - It clearly distinguishes including LLM output in what gets committed
>>>>   from other uses of LLMs for software development, as I have been
>>>>   repeatedly advocating is important, without much uptake.
>>>
>>> For the record, I also strongly agree with this distinction. Sean is not
>>> alone.
>>
>> I completely agree, too. And I fear that none of the ballot options
>> sufficiently cater to this distinction.
>>
>> Sean & Russ: How would you feel about a ballot option that bans
>> LLM-generated contributions, but explicitly does not opine on the
>> contributing human using LLM tools to e.g. debug, learn, plan, critique
>> etc. when creating the contribution?
>>
>> (I realize that such a proposal might be interpreted by some as forcing
>> those who are fine with LLM-generated code to become transcribers for
>> the LLM, but I hope that's a minority view and that most would
>> understand that that is not the intent.)
>
> Something like:
>
> DRAFT BALLOT OPTION
>
> **Ban AI-generated contributions, but allow AI assistance**
>
> Debian neither endorses nor prohibits the assistance of AI tools,
> including generative ones, during the work of contributing to the
> project. This includes e.g. tools used for research, learning,
> debugging, critique, adversarial testing etc. during the creation of
> contributions to Debian.
>
> However, the actual outputs of these tools suffer from several problems:
>
> * Unclear copyright status.
>
> * Difficulty with quality review and future maintenance.
>
> * Unanswered questions pertaining to what the preferred form of
>   modification is for software created this way.
>
> Debian therefore prohibits the inclusion of any AI-generated code,
> documentation or other content into the project.

Thanks.  I think this is a bit too narrowly focused, so overally I
prefer the option I've already seconded.

I'm also concerned about us having too many ballot options that people
won't read them all carefully.

=2D-=20
Sean Whitton

--=-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=3tzQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-=-=--