Hi Ludo, On Thu, 18 Jun 2026 at 22:26, Ludovic Courtès <[email protected]> wrote:
> OK, sounds good. I find the second sentence ambiguous and would be > tempted to summarize it as: > > Thus rule does not prevent use of genAI for exploratory analysis or to > produce non-legally-significant contributions. > > (“Running guix commands” is fine, whether or not it’s happening via an > agent, so I’m not sure what you had in mind.) Well, I am not sure to get if the wording that I’m proposing [1] is ignored or not, anyway. IMHO, the wording I’m proposing includes this “exploratory analysis” and many other usages that people would like to run – and we have no idea how creative hackers are! – as rubber duck debugging, summarizing pull-request discussions containing snippets of code, making more meaningful compiler error logs, etc. BTW, considering this addition of “exploratory analysis” part, FWIW, personally I don’t understand what it means; especially what I’m supposed to do with the output of this “exploratory analysis” when sticking on my pledge. Concretely, I cannot “use” GenAI for authoring, reviewing, and all other project task activities but I can “use“ GenAI for exploring. Hm, exploring for which aim if not some project task activities as authoring or reviewing? Therefore, the topic about rule #1 appears to me to be only the clarification of what is acceptable and what is not about “using” the output of LLMs when running all the project task activities. People do whatever they want with genAI. The only question is about “using” the output of LLMs. Well, IMHO, “This rule does not prevent use of genAI for exploratory analysis […]” frames implicitly a slippery slope about a “moral superiority” or some “virtue signaling”, no? Obviously that people rely on whatever they wish for exploratory analysis and beyond, no? IMHO, the rule must be explicit: “Namely, the use of genAI means …“ or something along this. It appears to me a bad wording to rely on “does not prevent for X”. Does it imply that it prevents for Y? Stating “not simply pasting without proper review using human own input” appears to me clearer considering all the comments in the discussion; obviously, it’s only one personal opinion among many others. :-) To me, that’s the only pledge we can ask: Although you do whatever you want about genAI, you promise to only collaborate with source code and comments that had been carefully crafted with care. Somehow, “setting a standard for what we do collectively within the project“ is mainly about the output of LLMs – it’s concrete and actionable –, hence the word “pasting” and also what I also propose [1] “never use genAI for directly or automatically interacting with the project”. Well, there is not much of a room for clarifying the standard and what we do collectively about “use of GenAI” without, IMHO, slipping toward some “moral superiority” or some “virtue signaling”. Moreover, when combining rule #1 with current rule #2 which clarifies the part about non-legally-significant, it covers the both sides. Somehow, “This rule does not prevent use of genAI for exploratory analysis or to produce non-legally-significant contributions.”, to me, it means the wording elsewhere isn’t good enough because such sentence should be inferred from the rest, for what my opinion is worth here. Whatever. It’s my last message discussing this GCD, I guess. Today, I have an idea about what I can live with and what I cannot. The current GCD – that has not been modified since 20 days – contains many small drawbacks that, once piled up, I’d have hard time to live with. Cheers, simon 1: Re: Submitting GCD 008: “Standing up for human crafting” Simon Tournier <[email protected]> Tue, 09 Jun 2026 20:00:28 +0200 id:[email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2026-06 https://yhetil.org/guix/[email protected]
