Hi Ian,
On 5/6/26 16:05, Ian Eure wrote:
Hi Hugo,
I agree, the software a person runs is (or should be) their decision.
Great!
What I proposed is completely neutral: people declare whether the
package uses LLM output. If you dislike LLM output, you can take steps
to minimize it. If you like LLM output, you can take steps to maximize
it. Obligation to declare has zero effect on obligation to use (or not).
OK, I agree that disclosure is good.
I inferred from your statement that "users should have the freedom to
run software that doesn't contain LLM output" that your aversion
against LLM's was mostly about something else than copyright; that
you have ethical concerns.
I have multiple concerns with it, as it’s bad in multiple ways.
Yes. And I have not proposed P.R.s using LLM generated content out of
respect of the people opposing it, not in the least you.
Now I'm doing manual work that I would prefer to automate, essentially
because you prefer that the work is done manually.
At some point I do wish to open up the discussion about why, and maybe
find a way to proceed that we can all be happy with.
(Preferably not here and now; I'm not initiating these discussions.)
(And if there isn't, and we are not allowed to ask people, then how do
we get anywhere?)
Thank you for the vivid illustration of the exact point I was making.
I don't understand what you mean. But I'm fine with postponing that
discussion.
Hugo
