Hi Hugo, Hugo Buddelmeijer <[email protected]> skribis:
> I don't think there is consensus to not use genAI at all for authoring > within the project. The GCD does allow for LLM authoring in some circumstances. > We have a huge list of things we do not want, and it seems everyone > generally agrees with that. There are still plenty of ways genAI can > be used within those constraints though. It is very young technology > though, so it is hard to envision what those good uses are. > > I think it would be good if the GCD had a tone like "GenAI is powerful > technology, so we need to explore how we can best make use of it. But > it is also dangerous, so we have a set of strict constraints on genAI > use to ensure our values are retained." This GCD in its current form is unambitious compared to the initial draft. To me, it’s a compromise where we only kept precautionary measures, particularly to protect against the legal and social issues arising from genAI use that were identified in free software projects. > Nevertheless, I won't be the one to oppose the GCD; as I said, it is > acceptable for now, even though I think it is way overreaching. And I > don't have the desire to go against those who have invested so much > more into Guix. But I plan to stay around, and because I do believe > the GCD as-is might do more harm then good in the long run, I find it > important to be involved in the discussion. This GCD essentially advocates for the status quo: contributing to this project just like we’ve been doing for the past 14 years. I’ve enjoyed the project so far so I can see myself enjoying it going forward with the safeguards this GCD proposes to install. The real change would be non-regulation resulting from the withdrawal of GCD 008: the legal situation would become irreversible, and changes in social dynamics would be just as already documented for other free software projects. Thanks for your thoughtful reply! Ludo’.
