Simon Richter <[email protected]> wrote on 25/08/2026 at 11:48:04+0200:
> Hi, > > On 8/25/26 5:52 PM, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > > [Training exclusively on Debian resources] > >>> The training set would be too small to argue that copyrights are >>> sufficiently diluted that we can ignore licenses (which is a dangerous >>> position that we should not adopt), so code generation is out. > >> Code generation is not out, there is nothing very specific to Debian, >> and you can take a strong model and add a RAG layer for Debian specific >> data, documentation etc. > > The "take a strong model" bit is key here: it requires us to import a > binary blob that is not reproducible for us, so that doesn't satisfy > the criteria from Wookey's question. I did not read Wookey's question as "using a reproducible" model, but rather as "using a model we have on our infra or on a dev infra". > There is no model that satisfies these criteria, and building one is > not an LLM (lacking the "large" aspect), so its use would be limited > to search indexing and almost-verbatim reproductions of code. There is no model that satisfies the criteria you set, but again, I'm not convinced that it was what Wookey asked for. > Search indexing might be useful, but lossy reproduction of code is > worse than useless, because it still requires review effort but does > not even launder copyright under the most benevolent interpretation of > the law. Assuming that I understood right, we would not have a lossy reproduction of code, but rather a Qwen, Kimi, or whatever, with coding caps + a RAG on Debian parts. -- PEB
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
