On 2026-04-05 02:46, Hugo Buddelmeijer via wrote: > Hi Ian, Greg, world,
> 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. this block quote is not responsive to Ian's claim. What proposal is being blocked here? > > 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. Yet you have not named even one benefit. I will name some costs: LLM companies have repeatedly knocked over many other web services with bad crawlers that disrespect robots.txt as widely reported on Mastodon and elsewhere over the last 5 years; several documented cases of suicidal ideation encouraged by LLM leading to self-harm or murder, reported on regional news outlets and collected by Caelan Conrad; poisoning of discourse by ax-grinding cultists intent on appeasing Roko's Basilisk and deploying their lie machines to Look Big, visible in many venues > > 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. What idea? > > 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. Good news! There aren't sides. There is a project (actually a great many projects) and there is a cult trying to disrupt the project for the sake of a product from a company they worship. There exists some overlap between the groups. There is no cabal. > 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'. "Look something up" isn't vague. People have already brought up actual objections, which you are ignoring. > > 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. There is no need to speculate about whether "it" is well-documented. Stop typing and go read the documents. If you have difficulty with the documents, consider being more specific about what "it" is. > > 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. Neither of these sentences is true. Even if the former were true, the latter does not follow. You want a list of objections only so that you can "overcome" them with more slop. > > 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. There is no stalemate. There are not sides. LLMs are anti-free and are not software. They don't belong in Guix or in any distribution of software that respects users. If you wanted a list you could have made one with less effort than this reply took. > >> 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. Are you accusing your opponents of hysteria? Are we who disagree "tired and emotional"? Do we "just not understand"? Is this "good faith"?
