On Wed, May 6, 2026 at 4:21 PM Ian Eure <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Greg,
>
> Greg Hogan <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > On Wed, May 6, 2026 at 10:07 AM Ian Eure <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > [...]
> >> 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).
> >
> > Guix packages define the properties needed to use the
> > software. Your
> > proposal is to start including additional metadata orthogonal to
> > software freedoms.
>
> The 0th of the four essential freedoms[1] is:
>
> The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose.
>
> And the more lengthy explanation of this freedom states:
>
> “As you wish” includes, optionally, “not at all” if that is
> what
> you wish. So there is no need for a separate “freedom not to
> run a
> program.”
>
> Because many people wish not to run software containing LLM
> output,
> the proposed property directly supports this freedom.
No one here is restricting your freedom to selectively run software as you wish.
What you are proposing is to mandate that others write software to
your personal desires, in violation of their 1st software freedom:
The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so
it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to
the source code is a precondition for this.
> > The clear alternative is to use the existing
> > external datasets previously referenced to filter your own
> > package
> > manifests. Then no one is obliged.
>
> Adding a single boolean flag to only packages containing LLM
> output
> does not strike me as a particularly weighty obligation.
What are the specifics of your single boolean flag? This is for output
from any LLM model? Others may be fine with LLM output when the model
is open weights, or when trained on explicitly licensed data. There
are additional dimensions. Others may not even want the software to
have been reviewed by an LLM. Or the the developer(s) make use of LLMs
tangential to the software development.
Then there is the question of why only the LLM bit should be tracked.
What of criminals, perhaps someone prefers not to run software written
by a criminal. But have they served their time? Unless they harmed
children, perhaps that is unforgivable but by God. What if someone has
harmed children but not as a crime in their own country? Or worse,
what if a software developer has wrong thoughts, not yet criminalized
everywhere? Or even thinks for him- or herself? Yes, it's all a bit
ridiculous.
