On 10.08.26 20:41, Soren Stoutner wrote:
However, even though we do have many options, I think that at least one of them will beat Further Discussion and we will emerge from this with a consensus on how the project as a whole feels towards AI.
I tend to agree, except for one point I feel fairly strongly about: "consensus".
A consensus is, by definition, a result which most (if not all) can live with. Not just some majority, not even some supermajority.
Speaking of supermajorities. Assume that Proposal A "ugh-no-AIs-ever" wins by 8:3 above Proposal B "allow-AIs" (which itself narrowly wins by 100:99 above Further Discussion), but gets tossed out because it doesn't attain the required 3:1 supermajority (it does attempt to change the Social Contract …). If that happens, the result – "allow-AIs" wins – is not something I'd call something the "project as a whole" feels, much less a consensus.
(I know that this is highly unlikely, esp. given the existence of Proposals C, D, E and F …)
The discussion so far was very interesting and did inform my approach to the LLM question, but it definitely didn't result in any sort of consensus IMHO.
-- -- regards -- -- Matthias Urlichs
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
