Antoine Le Gonidec writes ("Re: GR: Ban LLM contributions from Debian"):
> I think this proposal was better with its section 8. against LLM use
> for translations, and without the 4.a. exception to LLM use in human
> communication.Thanks for the feedback. As I say, I think the difference here is at least as much tactical as principle. I would like the most generally appealling version of this kind of proposal on the ballot. If an anti-LLM option wins with a clear majority I expect moderators etc. to follow its spirit. The loss of the explicit permission for posting in one's own langauge is unfortuante. I think it would be the most principled resolution of the translation quandary. But I think if we want to win this GR we need to avoid relitigating existing settlements in other areas, even if some of theose settlements are unsatisfactory.[1] I'm certainly going to keep my ear open for further opinions, especially from seconders of LLM-sceptical proposals. Ian. [1] FTR I'm not really happy with bans on non-English contributions, but I do see the practical difficulties, and don't have good answers. I think authors using LLMs is one of the worst possible answers, which is why I would like to forbid it. -- Ian Jackson <[email protected]> These opinions are my own. Pronouns: they/he. If I emailed you from @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
