On 27/07/26 at 14:26 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Lucas Nussbaum writes ("Re: GR: Ban LLM contributions from Debian"):
> > I recently produced two concrete cases that might be worth considering
> > to help define what (4.) should say.
>
> I feel you are trying to pick at edge cases.
Not at all. Those are real examples where I believe that LLMs can
produce something useful in the context of Debian contributions, not toy
examples. I am trying to understand how your proposal would affect this
kind of contributions, and if there's a chance that we find a
middleground that makes those tolerable for you.
> Having said that. your first two examples are the kind of thing I am
> trying to prohibit, and I think that I can be reasonably confident
> that (if my option wins) the Community Team (say) would see it that
> way.
ACK.
> I should say that I have not read any of the things you refer to. I
> am relying on your descriptions. I regard LLM output as an infohazard
> - a kind of pollution, that it is dangerous to interact with.
Unfortunately finding a middleground (e.g. allow references to LLM
output in human-to-human communications, but not direct inclusion) is
going to be difficult if you refuse to engage in a discussion with those
that disagree with you.
Lucas
