Hi Greg, On 2026-05-05 at 15:04-04:00, Greg Hogan wrote: > I would be interested to see an analysis of incidental memoization > rather than the claims of extractive memoization typically presented. > And taking into consideration the age of the models.
Same here. On 2026-05-05 at 15:04-04:00, Greg Hogan wrote: > On Tue, May 5, 2026 at 12:26 PM Nguyễn Gia Phong wrote: > > Considering only copyright, I think it'd help to consider LLM output > > to be similar to a loose page you found on the street. It might > > be from a book under copyright, or it might be really old > > and have entered the public domain, who knows, so it's prolly unwise > > to redistribute it. > > True, but you could transform that snippet into a full new story as > ideas are not copyrightable. I'm not arguing that against one reading LLM output _then_ implementing things either. I made an anology to highlight pasting LLM output, (modifying it) and redistributing that is not the wisest thing to do. There are nuances between using something for ideas and reusing the artistic expression. On 2026-05-05 at 15:04-04:00, Greg Hogan wrote: > On Tue, May 5, 2026 at 12:26 PM Nguyễn Gia Phong wrote: > > On 2026-05-05 at 11:05-04:00, Greg Hogan wrote: > > > The risk to our project is mitigated in that most Guix contributions > > > are not copyrightable "factual" updates for versions, checksums, and > > > applying patches. > > > > Agreed, and these updates are not blocked by the lack of patches, > > but their reviewers. (IMHO LLM cannot meaningfully participating > > in opening an editor and changing version and checksum strings, > > or downloading a patch file anyway.) > > I don't understand what you mean by "LLM cannot meaningfully ...". > Do you mean that those actions are so simple as to not be a meaningful > contribution? I meant it does not really assist with determining the latest/desired version to update to, autocompleting the checksum, pointing to the patches' URLs, or rebasing them for the version to be packaged. There can be tools wrapping around LLM but at it's more effective to write one that behave semantically instead. On 2026-05-05 at 15:04-04:00, Greg Hogan wrote: > I would be very interested to see an LLM attempt to > update Guix packages. Not simple leaf packages but core tools or > libraries with hundreds or thousands of dependent packages, many > requiring version updates or pinning or patches from upstream sources. > The Guix package set is more assembled than built. Since each partial world rebuild costs days to a week of CI time, I don't think that's an option for us. Socially we also need someone to take responsibility in using the shared resources fairly. Due to the costly QA, patches updating core-ish packages are left hanging for months or even years. Kind regards, Phong
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
