So far QGIS (and gdal as insiration) are addressing category 1 only.
This means
human engages with an LLM to figure out a problem
human comes to understand the code and larger issues
human writes a patch and commit message
human submits that to qgis
is not a problem (not a category 1 problem).
I believe one difficulty is that the purely non-technical /
non-interaction issues of LLM use will be considered as "political", and
for good or bad reasons, we generally try to avoid bringing political
topics on the table when we can because they're perceived as divisive /
not-safe-for-work topics. The "when we can" is important here. My guts
tell me that we'd need to be radical on this subject and middle ground
does not work when we have to face a huge propaganda that is imposed to
all layers of the society. That said, I've seen recently a call for
tender from a French public organize where use of generative AI is
prohibited. That's clearly something to encourage, but I'm not clear on
the motivation of that restriction. I suspect it has to with the fact
that generative AI use strongly relies on US companies, so I'm not sure
how long such restriction if/when Europe gains sovereign AI capabilities.
We are a very social species. If a sufficient subgroup of us manages to
take the stance that those techs are not acceptable (the list of reasons
for which they are not is long. that should be easy), others will feel
more comfortable expressing similar views.
Even
--
http://www.spatialys.com
My software is free, but my time generally not.
LLMs contribute to global warming and brain rot
_______________________________________________
QGIS-Developer mailing list
[email protected]
List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
