Charles Plessy writes ("Re: Ballot option: Call the Free Software community to
develop Free AI."):
> I would like to reach a point where we can agree to disagree without
> having one side imposing its own terms on the other side.
That's always nice when we can do it, of course. (Historically, we
have been very bad at that, though.)
My proposal is in fact trying to do that, as far as possible.
Most of it is simply opinion. It provides for individual projects
(package maintainer teams) to be able to set their own rules.
The sticking point comes when we must interact with each other,
as fellow members of a common project. [1]
Let's take as an example racist material: we must either impose on
racists a ban on them writing as they wish, or we must impose on
racialised people that they must read racist material (or leave).
Similarly with LLM output. We must either (a) impose on everyone,
that they must tolerate LLM-generated bug reports, LLM-generated
responses to their own bug reports, LLM-generated argumentation in
debates like this one, etc.; or (b) impose on everyone a rule that
this is not allowed.
We can make different rules for different cases - and indeed, my
proposal does that: there are different rules for code, from
communication; and, there's an ability for moderators to make
variations.
But ultimately, either way, we will be forcing one side to accept
something they find unpalatable. The reason we on the anti-LLM side
are having to promote this GR is because, in the absence of a clear
rule, the project's existing moderators do not seem to regard the
promulgation of LLM output as disrespectful. [0]
So, ultimately, if we don't win this GR, many of us will disengage.
No doubt a few will leave completely. Others will simply retreat into
spaces where we don't have to deal with stuff we consider toxic.
Many of us will find the whole thing less fun and spend our energy
elsewhere.
More generally, one should be very wary of opposing a governance
action on the grounds that it is "divisive". Often, as in this case,
the division (and harm and injustice) is already there, and the
governance action is an attempt at redress.
Thanks for listening. I have a more technical point to make too,
which I'll do in a separate email.
Ian.
[0] TBH, I disagree with that. I think using an LLM at all is, and
sending someone LLM output is very disrespectful. But given the
existing state of the discourse in the wider "tech" (urgh) world, I'm
not very surprised that our moderators don't want to make that rule
without a clear political decision - like this GR.
[1] There is another sticking point, too, of course: we LLM sceptics
are being left with little alternative but to rely on, and run, code
generated by LLMs. Unfortunately the problem is very pervasive
amongst many upstreams and this is not something we can fix within
Debian, even though It boils my blood.
--
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.
