On 09/11/26 at 20:02 +0000, Bill Allombert wrote: > Le Mon, Nov 09, 2026 at 06:10:44PM +0100, Marc Haber a écrit : > > On Mon, Nov 09, 2026 at 05:27:48PM +0100, Matthias Geiger wrote: > > > The main point isn't whether this has consequences for NEW, but rather > > > that I get a non-human message I didn't ask for. And this is very > > > different from mass bug filings: Those need to announced on -devel, > > > and then after a discussion those are sent. However, those provide > > > value, such as coordinating a transition or removing outdated > > > dependencies from the archive. Those reports serve a goal to simplify > > > and coordinate work across the archive. An LLM "review" of my copyright > > > does not. It it just a wall of text from a model, that provides no value > > > for the uploader. I can just run licensecheck locally and can get the > > > same result. > > > > Just for the record, I'd consider the feedback I get without having to do > > anything of value. Not as valueable as a feedback from an expert human > > reviewer, but we don't have that kind of personpower. > > The problem is that any LLM feedback is adversarial by nature. > LLM are designed to elude scrutinity, to pass from a competent human. > Here lie the real danger. > > Lucas [1] posted an example of a LLM review. The review was completly wrong > but it was sufficiently plausible that Lucas and most other debian-devel > commentors accepted it as valid. Some of them, including Lucas, have > years of experience as DD. This failure to spot the blatant errors show > that nobody is immune to LLM influence.
That subthread started with people complaining that the reviews received by email were too long. I took a random review and quickly tried to summarize it to provide an example. Saying that "I and most of debian-devel commenters accepted the review as valid" is wrong: I did not question it since it was just used as input for an example summary. Funnily, it turned out that the lengthy reviews people have been complained about receiving by email were not actually received by email: a summary was already provided. A discussion with more facts and less fingerpointing would be nice. Lucas
