Hi Ian, Greg, world,
On 4/5/26 04:36, Ian Eure wrote:
Greg Hogan <[email protected]> writes:
The original request was to 'please provide more details on
"tremendous human suffering" because I know too little about that' and
get book recommendations. It should be possible to identify the
"tremendous human suffering" (past, present, and future!), "infringing
intellectual property", and where "unprofitable technology is putting
national economies at risk".
I agree.
On 4/5/26 04:36, Ian Eure wrote:
I have no secret information and owe you exactly nothing.
To some extent you do, quoting the entirety of 22.12 Making Decisions:
> It is expected from all contributors, and even more so from
> committers, to help build consensus and make decisions based on
> consensus. By using consensus, we are committed to finding solutions
> that everyone can live with. It implies that no decision is made
> against significant concerns and these concerns are actively resolved
> with proposals that work for everyone.
>
> A contributor (who may or may not have commit access) wishing to block
> a proposal bears a special responsibility for finding alternatives,
> proposing ideas/code or explain the rationale for the status quo to
> resolve the deadlock.
I agree with Greg that using LLM's and AI in general have the potential
greatly benefit Guix and the free software movement in general.
It would be up to me, Greg, and others to explain why LLM use might be a
great idea, and up to you and others to explain why the idea might be bad.
Both sides are currently not acting "to help build consensus"; we can do
better. There shouldn't even be sides; we are in this together.
On 4/5/26 04:36, Ian Eure wrote:
You are welcome to research the multitude of well-documented harms
> done by LLMs yourself.
We need actual, concrete, objections from Guix contributors so we can
investigate and see whether we can resolve those. Not vague 'someone
somewhere wrote something about it'.
If it is well documented, it should be easy to point to the specific
issues we as a project should be concerned about. If it is not well
documented, we should start documenting it.
We should also differentiate between personal objections and what we as
a project want. We can only do that by actually writing out a list of
objections first.
I can make up a list of potential issues that people might raise, but
that feels kinda the wrong way around. I'm planning to do so anyway at
some point, because I don't like this stale mate.
Your hostile attitude doesn’t convey openness to good-faith
discussion, so I won’t waste my time and blood pressure in the attempt.
Agreed. I do want to engage with you more at some point to find a way
forward, exactly because of you being passionate.
Hugo
