Lucas Nussbaum [19/Feb 12:18pm +01] wrote: > Could you elaborate on how you would use such distinction in ballot > options? I think that the core issue is the fact that tools generate > content that is then integrated into Debian. I don't really see how it > could be useful to distinguish between uses of such tools as long as > they are used to generate code.
My point is that they have uses beyond generating code and someone might want to vote to say to allow those uses, but to disallow including generated code. For example, if you use them as a fancy find-and-replace to do some refactoring, that's not really generating code. Someone might be okay with that. Someone else might not be (even though we couldn't detect that a contribution was made using an LLM purely to do refactoring like that, we want to vote on what we believe is actually acceptable). > Also, in terms of terminology, I find talking about "AI" slightly better > because it encompasses the whole ecosystem: trained model, inference > provider, agent (client-side tool that interacts with the codebase). It makes sense to want to include all those, but they're still the LLM-based incarnation of AI, not AI in general. So I would suggest saying "LLMs and surrounding tooling" or something like that. -- Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
