On Wed, Jun 17, 2026 at 8:33 PM Ludovic Courtès <[email protected]> wrote: > > Greg Hogan <[email protected]> skribis: > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2026 at 3:59 PM Ludovic Courtès <[email protected]> wrote: > > [...] > > >> Several people suggested distinguishing between using an LLM for > >> exploration and using an LLM for authoring. > > > > How are we distinguishing exploration from authoring? > > Authoring means producing code. Remember that Guix has package > definitions but not just. > > > Are we including running Guix commands under exploration? So that when > > updating a library resulting in a dependent package failure (x1000) > > the LLM could run `guix refresh` on the failed package and rebuild? Or > > if the agent explores the failed log file, searches on the error > > message, and finds the patch in a project PR/commit/email, the agent > > could copy (not author) the patch into the repo and use a guix tool to > > modify the package patch list? > > Yes. But again, as is already the case today, the person submitting the > patch must be able to explain the change.
Yes, of course. Nothing in the GCD is changing expectations or responsibilities regarding licensing, package inclusion, or the quality of contributions. > >> For this reason, the first item lists specific uses, and exploration is > >> not among those: > >> > >> 1. The project (defined as maintainers, team members, and anyone with > >> write access to a Guix repository, including Weblate, or to Guix > >> resources such as the build farm) **will not use nor encourage use > >> of genAI** to author code or packages, to review code, to produce > >> artwork, > >> translations, or any other artifacts. > >> > >> Does this address your concern? > >> > >> If not, what change would make it acceptable to you? And what would be > >> ideal to you? (The two answers may differ.) > > > > We also need to document what the project and contributors are > > permitted to do with GenAI, including exploration. > > (This is your answer to making the pledge acceptable to you?) > > Isn’t it implicit, given that we document what we do not want? Given the confusion over commitments #1 and #2, could we simplify these to something like: "The project will not use nor encourage use of genAI to author code or packages, to review code, to produce artwork, translations, or any other artifacts. These prohibitions do not constrain exploratory analysis, running guix commands, or authoring non-legally significant contributions. This is to ensure the contributor has a valid copyright claim on the code. For example, this includes code less than 15-line-long, or package definitions that are evidently not creative, similar to those that guix import and similar tools might produce." Regarding some later replies, I think it is clear that as a "Guix Consensus Document" the text of this GCD only applies to the Guix project.
