-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
Hi Hugo,
Thank you for your calm replay, I should practice more smooth writing
style ;-)
> You can just ask them? How is any different from other problems that
> also do not get their own tag?
I did ask the author and received a good feedback, they honest replay
was "I didn't know". Also there is a higher order Codeberg policy which
may affect any LLM generated code to be dropped immediately [1], I refer
to this part
> However, we also need to be honest about certain use cases that might no
> longer be welcome on Codeberg. If you see yourself on this list, you
> don't need to move right away, but there might be other places that
> better fit your needs:
>
> * Projects that are created by LLM "agents" in autonomous ways
> * Projects written and maintained with heavy use of LLMs
> * Projects where the amount of resources (e.g. storage, CI/CD) is
> significantly larger than what the involved amount of people could
> have created by hand
> * Projects heavily tied to the LLM ecosystem, e.g. LLM-written tools to
> ease LLM usage
> * Users sending LLM contributions in violation of project's custom
> policies
I could be wrong, but some of the mentioned PRs already return 404 due
to that.
> That is a very strange conclusion. We got to meet people where they
> are somewhat and try to get them to become a contributor.
As [2] is already part of contributing guidance - how we need to
implement the following statemen during day-to-day review process (?):
> We do not accept contributions that were written by, or based on code
> written by, a @acronym{LLM, Large Language Model} coding assistant. This
> is due to the uncertain copyright status of the outputs generated by an
> LLM, which could be incompatible with and undermine the
> @url{https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html, license} used by the GNU
> Guix project.
Let's see how others implement that in practice and share experience.
> Guix has a very extreme stance currently, so we should put some effort
> into explaining that stance before shunning people.
Agreed here, so-far-so-good I did not face with any other pure LLMed
code during review ^.^ but I'll try as a reviewer and a committer to
transpose current Guix state on that as well as I can.
> Branding P.R.s with such a tag is already pretty extreme.
Agreed, and I'm apologize for the harsh action. Let's revert
that tag and utilize 'kind/moreinfo' which is general enough to cover
all uncertain cases during review.
> We are not a cult. (Right?)
For sure }:-D
[1]. https://blog.codeberg.org/protecting-our-floss-commons-from-llms.html
[2]. https://codeberg.org/guix/guix/pulls/11407/files
- ---
Oleg
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=IYMi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
