Hi Greg, Greg Hogan <[email protected]> skribis:
> How is "legally significant" being used? The link to the GNU maintainers manual is meant to explain what is meant by “legally-significant”. But you’re right that it is written with copyright assignment in mind, which can be confusing. Perhaps we can drop the link? The “rule of thumb” that follows explains what it’s about; we can still expound on it if something is missing. WDYT? > The pledge commitments include the "will not use nor encourage use of > genAI" but the policy lists exceptions. How to reconcile this? How are > we defining "encourage use"? I would think that all acceptable > contributions to the project could be discussed and encouraged. I see two possibilities. 1. Clarify “encouragement”: Examples of what would qualify as “encouraging the use of genAI” includes: providing project members with a commercial LLM subscription, communicating publicly on genAI-produced artifacts related to Guix (e.g., in blog posts), suggesting in pull requests and issues that people use genAI to solve their problem, and any similar action. 2. Drop “nor encourage use”. I’m not a fan of this as it weakens the rule, but maybe that’s okay in practice (hard for the project to encourage without using). > Regarding the policy on interaction, I think there is consensus on > keeping the human "in the loop" but "copying text provided by genAI as > answers or explanations in a discussion" is not "removing the human > from the loop". And "direct interaction" precludes genAI actions > requested by the user. I think the intent here is that we should not > be pushing unsolicited requests from genAI to the user. Right, exactly. By “copying text” I meant pasting text: the human is in the loop, but only to hit C-c and C-v (indistinguishable from an agent). Would saying “pasting” instead of “copying” (I think that’s how Simon phrased it) be clearer? What kind of “genAI actions” not covered by policy rule #3 do you have in mind? > What is the purpose of the disclosure policy? Anyone wishing to avoid > GenAI can tag and filter their contributions as "pure". Is the > disclosure meant to be an "Assisted-by: harness (vendor/model)" > trailer in the git commit? Disclosure is necessary to determine whether the criteria of item #2 (“Contribution acceptance”) apply. André, Cayetano, and others suggested an ‘Assisted-by’ tag. However I view it as promotion of the vendor without any technical usefulness, since the code generation process is not reproducible. Instead I would prefer plain text disclosure, a checkbox in the pull request template, or a tag like ‘LLM-Assistance: debugging’. WDYT? > The motivation section remains unchanged despite the concerns and > suggestions from Simon and others. I’ll have to read them again and understand how much of a blocker it is. Thanks again for your feedback, Ludo’.
