[gentoo-dev] Last rites: dev-python/nose
# Michał Górny (2024-02-28) # Nosetests have been abandoned in 2015. Upstream (while technically # still around) has refused to accept any patches since, and we have # already had to fork it, to keep it somewhat working. All # the remaining reverse dependencies were finally ported or last rited. # Removal on 2024-03-29. Bug #822414. dev-python/nose -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[gentoo-dev] Last rites: app-misc/rmlint
# Michał Górny (2024-02-28) # The project is not really actively maintained upstream, and it still # depends on dev-python/nose. There are other tools with similar # functionality. # Removal on 2024-03-29. Bug #878695. app-misc/rmlint -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: banning "AI"-backed (LLM/GPT/whatever) contributions to Gentoo
On Tue, 2024-02-27 at 21:05 -0600, Oskari Pirhonen wrote: > What about cases where someone, say, doesn't have an excellent grasp of > English and decides to use, for example, ChatGPT to aid in writing > documentation/comments (not code) and puts a note somewhere explicitly > mentioning what was AI-generated so that someone else can take a closer > look? > > I'd personally not be the biggest fan of this if it wasn't in something > like a PR or ml post where it could be reviewed before being made final. > But the most impportant part IMO would be being up-front about it. I'm afraid that wouldn't help much. From my experiences, it would be less effort for us to help writing it from scratch, than trying to untangle whatever verbose shit ChatGPT generates. Especially that a person with poor grasp of the language could have trouble telling whether the generated text is actually meaningful. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: app-admin/salt, dev-python/pytest-salt-factories, dev-python/boto
The salt ebuild has been refactored to remove the tests and modules that require dev-python/boto, and the mask has been removed. Salt has a lot of users, and it would be doing them a disservice to remove it from the tree. On 2024-02-27 07:42, Michał Górny wrote: # Michał Górny (2024-02-27) # dev-python/boto is dead, with last release in 2018. It has been # replaced by dev-python/boto3. It carries a ton of patches and still # depends on dev-python/nose. # # app-admin/salt is its only remaining reverse dependency. The ebuild # is of very low quality. # # Removal on 2024-03-28. Bug #888235. app-admin/salt dev-python/pytest-salt-factories dev-python/boto
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: banning "AI"-backed (LLM/GPT/whatever) contributions to Gentoo
On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 15:45:17 +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > Hello, > > Given the recent spread of the "AI" bubble, I think we really need to > look into formally addressing the related concerns. In my opinion, > at this point the only reasonable course of action would be to safely > ban "AI"-backed contribution entirely. In other words, explicitly > forbid people from using ChatGPT, Bard, GitHub Copilot, and so on, to > create ebuilds, code, documentation, messages, bug reports and so on for > use in Gentoo. > > Just to be clear, I'm talking about our "original" content. We can't do > much about upstream projects using it. > I agree. But for the sake of discussion: What about cases where someone, say, doesn't have an excellent grasp of English and decides to use, for example, ChatGPT to aid in writing documentation/comments (not code) and puts a note somewhere explicitly mentioning what was AI-generated so that someone else can take a closer look? I'd personally not be the biggest fan of this if it wasn't in something like a PR or ml post where it could be reviewed before being made final. But the most impportant part IMO would be being up-front about it. > > Rationale: > > 1. Copyright concerns. At this point, the copyright situation around > generated content is still unclear. What's pretty clear is that pretty > much all LLMs are trained on huge corpora of copyrighted material, and > all fancy "AI" companies don't give shit about copyright violations. > In particular, there's a good risk that these tools would yield stuff we > can't legally use. > I really dislike the lack of audit trail for where the bits and pieces come from. Not to mention the examples from early on where Copilot was filling in incorrect attribution. - Oskari signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: banning "AI"-backed (LLM/GPT/whatever) contributions to Gentoo
On 2/27/24 9:45 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > Hello, > > Given the recent spread of the "AI" bubble, I think we really need to > look into formally addressing the related concerns. In my opinion, > at this point the only reasonable course of action would be to safely > ban "AI"-backed contribution entirely. In other words, explicitly > forbid people from using ChatGPT, Bard, GitHub Copilot, and so on, to > create ebuilds, code, documentation, messages, bug reports and so on for > use in Gentoo. No constructive or valuable contributions will fall afoul of the new ban. Seems reasonable to me. -- Eli Schwartz OpenPGP_0x84818A6819AF4A9B.asc Description: OpenPGP public key OpenPGP_signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: banning "AI"-backed (LLM/GPT/whatever) contributions to Gentoo
Am Dienstag, 27. Februar 2024, 18:50:15 CET schrieb Roy Bamford: > On 2024.02.27 14:45, Michał Górny wrote: > > Hello, > > > > [...] > > > > Gentoo has always stood out as something different, something that > > worked for people for whom mainstream distros were lacking. I think > > adding "made by real people" to the list of our advantages would be > > a good thing — but we need to have policies in place, to make sure > > shit > > doesn't flow in. > > > > Compare with the shitstorm at: > > https://github.com/pkgxdev/pantry/issues/5358 > > Michał, > > An excellent piece of prose setting out the rationale. > I fully support it. I would like to add the following: Last year we had a chatbot in our Gentoo forum that posted 76 posts on 2024-12-19. An inexperienced moderator (me) then asked his colleagues on the basis of which forum rules we can ban this chatbot: "Do we have a rule somewhere that an AI and a chatbot are not allowed to log in? I have read our Guideĺines ( https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-525.html ) and found no such prohibition. On what basis could we even block a chatbot ?" The answer from two experienced colleagues was that this is already covered by our forum rules, because chatbots usually cannot (yet) fulfill the requirements of a forum post and therefore violate our Guideĺines. To be honest, I asked myself at the time what would happen if we had a clearly recognizable AI as a user that made (reasonably) sensible posts. We would then have no chance of banning this AI user without an explicit prohibition. I would be much more comfortable if we clearly communicated that we do not accept an AI as a user. Yes, I would also be very happy to see this proposal implemented. -- Best regards, Peter (aka pietinger)
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: banning "AI"-backed (LLM/GPT/whatever) contributions to Gentoo
On 24/02/27 07:07PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > On Tue, 27 Feb 2024, Rich Freeman wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 9:45 AM Michał Górny wrote: > >> > >> Given the recent spread of the "AI" bubble, I think we really need to > >> look into formally addressing the related concerns. > > First of all, I fully support mgorny's proposal. > > >> 1. Copyright concerns. > > > I do think it makes sense to consider some of this. > > > However, I feel like the proposal is redundant with the existing > > requirement to signoff on the DCO, which says: > > By making a contribution to this project, I certify that: > > 1. The contribution was created in whole or in part by me, and > I have the right to submit it under the free software license > indicated in the file; or > > 2. The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best of > my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate free software license, > and I have the right under that license to submit that work with > modifications, whether created in whole or in part by me, under the > same free software license (unless I am permitted to submit under a > different license), as indicated in the file; or > > 3. The contribution is a license text (or a file of similar nature), > and verbatim distribution is allowed; or > > 4. The contribution was provided directly to me by some other person > who certified 1., 2., 3., or 4., and I have not modified it. > > I have been thinking about this aspect too. Certainly there is some > overlap with our GLEP 76 policy, but I don't think that it is redundant. > > I'd rather see it as a (much needed) clarification how to deal with AI > generated code. All the better if the proposal happens to agree with > policies that are already in place. > > Ulrich This is my interpretation of it as well, especially when it comes to para. 2: >>> 2. The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best of >>> my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate free software license, >>> [...] It is extremely difficult (if not impossible) to verify this with some of these tools, and that's assuming that the user of these tools knows enough about how they work where this is a concern to them. I would argue it's best to stay away from these tools at least until there is more clear and concise legal interpretation of their usage in relation to copyright. -- Kenton Groombridge Gentoo Linux Developer, SELinux Project signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: banning "AI"-backed (LLM/GPT/whatever) contributions to Gentoo
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2024, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 9:45 AM Michał Górny wrote: >> >> Given the recent spread of the "AI" bubble, I think we really need to >> look into formally addressing the related concerns. First of all, I fully support mgorny's proposal. >> 1. Copyright concerns. > I do think it makes sense to consider some of this. > However, I feel like the proposal is redundant with the existing > requirement to signoff on the DCO, which says: By making a contribution to this project, I certify that: 1. The contribution was created in whole or in part by me, and I have the right to submit it under the free software license indicated in the file; or 2. The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate free software license, and I have the right under that license to submit that work with modifications, whether created in whole or in part by me, under the same free software license (unless I am permitted to submit under a different license), as indicated in the file; or 3. The contribution is a license text (or a file of similar nature), and verbatim distribution is allowed; or 4. The contribution was provided directly to me by some other person who certified 1., 2., 3., or 4., and I have not modified it. I have been thinking about this aspect too. Certainly there is some overlap with our GLEP 76 policy, but I don't think that it is redundant. I'd rather see it as a (much needed) clarification how to deal with AI generated code. All the better if the proposal happens to agree with policies that are already in place. Ulrich signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: banning "AI"-backed (LLM/GPT/whatever) contributions to Gentoo
Michał Górny writes: > Hello, > > Given the recent spread of the "AI" bubble, I think we really need to > look into formally addressing the related concerns. In my opinion, > at this point the only reasonable course of action would be to safely > ban "AI"-backed contribution entirely. In other words, explicitly > forbid people from using ChatGPT, Bard, GitHub Copilot, and so on, to > create ebuilds, code, documentation, messages, bug reports and so on for > use in Gentoo. > > Just to be clear, I'm talking about our "original" content. We can't do > much about upstream projects using it. > I agree with the proposal, just some thoughts below. I'm a bit worried this is slightly performative - which is not a dig at you at all - given we can't really enforce it, and it requires honesty, but that's also not a reason to not try ;) > > Rationale: > > 1. Copyright concerns. At this point, the copyright situation around > generated content is still unclear. What's pretty clear is that pretty > much all LLMs are trained on huge corpora of copyrighted material, and > all fancy "AI" companies don't give shit about copyright violations. > In particular, there's a good risk that these tools would yield stuff we > can't legally use. > It also makes risk for anyone basing products or tools on Gentoo if we're not confident about the integrity / provenance of our work. > 2. Quality concerns. LLMs are really great at generating plausibly > looking bullshit. I suppose they can provide good assistance if you are > careful enough, but we can't really rely on all our contributors being > aware of the risks. > > 3. Ethical concerns. As pointed out above, the "AI" corporations don't > give shit about copyright, and don't give shit about people. The AI > bubble is causing huge energy waste. It is giving a great excuse for > layoffs and increasing exploitation of IT workers. It is driving > enshittification of the Internet, it is empowering all kinds of spam > and scam. > > > Gentoo has always stood out as something different, something that > worked for people for whom mainstream distros were lacking. I think > adding "made by real people" to the list of our advantages would be > a good thing — but we need to have policies in place, to make sure shit > doesn't flow in. > > Compare with the shitstorm at: > https://github.com/pkgxdev/pantry/issues/5358 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: banning "AI"-backed (LLM/GPT/whatever) contributions to Gentoo
On 2024.02.27 14:45, Michał Górny wrote: > Hello, > > Given the recent spread of the "AI" bubble, I think we really need to > look into formally addressing the related concerns. In my opinion, > at this point the only reasonable course of action would be to safely > ban "AI"-backed contribution entirely. In other words, explicitly > forbid people from using ChatGPT, Bard, GitHub Copilot, and so on, to > create ebuilds, code, documentation, messages, bug reports and so on > for > use in Gentoo. > > Just to be clear, I'm talking about our "original" content. We can't > do > much about upstream projects using it. > > > Rationale: > > 1. Copyright concerns. At this point, the copyright situation around > generated content is still unclear. What's pretty clear is that > pretty > much all LLMs are trained on huge corpora of copyrighted material, and > all fancy "AI" companies don't give shit about copyright violations. > In particular, there's a good risk that these tools would yield stuff > we > can't legally use. > > 2. Quality concerns. LLMs are really great at generating plausibly > looking bullshit. I suppose they can provide good assistance if you > are > careful enough, but we can't really rely on all our contributors being > aware of the risks. > > 3. Ethical concerns. As pointed out above, the "AI" corporations > don't > give shit about copyright, and don't give shit about people. The AI > bubble is causing huge energy waste. It is giving a great excuse for > layoffs and increasing exploitation of IT workers. It is driving > enshittification of the Internet, it is empowering all kinds of spam > and scam. > > > Gentoo has always stood out as something different, something that > worked for people for whom mainstream distros were lacking. I think > adding "made by real people" to the list of our advantages would be > a good thing — but we need to have policies in place, to make sure > shit > doesn't flow in. > > Compare with the shitstorm at: > https://github.com/pkgxdev/pantry/issues/5358 > > -- > Best regards, > Michał Górny > > Michał, An excellent piece of prose setting out the rationale. I fully support it. -- Regards, Roy Bamford (Neddyseagoon) a member of elections gentoo-ops forum-mods arm64 pgp0BJ299ipp6.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: banning "AI"-backed (LLM/GPT/whatever) contributions to Gentoo
On Tue, Feb 27, 2024, at 08:45 CST, Michał Górny wrote: > Given the recent spread of the "AI" bubble, I think we really need to > look into formally addressing the related concerns. In my opinion, > at this point the only reasonable course of action would be to safely > ban "AI"-backed contribution entirely. In other words, explicitly > forbid people from using ChatGPT, Bard, GitHub Copilot, and so on, to > create ebuilds, code, documentation, messages, bug reports and so on for > use in Gentoo. +1 > 2. Quality concerns. LLMs are really great at generating plausibly > looking bullshit. I suppose they can provide good assistance if you are > careful enough, but we can't really rely on all our contributors being > aware of the risks. This is my main concern, but all of the other points are valid as well. Best, Matthias
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: banning "AI"-backed (LLM/GPT/whatever) contributions to Gentoo
On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 9:45 AM Michał Górny wrote: > > Given the recent spread of the "AI" bubble, I think we really need to > look into formally addressing the related concerns. > 1. Copyright concerns. I do think it makes sense to consider some of this. However, I feel like the proposal is redundant with the existing requirement to signoff on the DCO, which says: >>> By making a contribution to this project, I certify that: >>> 1. The contribution was created in whole or in part by me, and >>> I have the right to submit it under the free software license >>> indicated in the file; or >>> 2. The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best of >>> my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate free software license, >>> and I have the right under that license to submit that work with >>> modifications, whether created in whole or in part by me, under the >>> same free software license (unless I am permitted to submit under a >>> different license), as indicated in the file; or >>> 3. The contribution is a license text (or a file of similar nature), >>> and verbatim distribution is allowed; or >>> 4. The contribution was provided directly to me by some other person >>> who certified 1., 2., 3., or 4., and I have not modified it. Perhaps we ought to just re-advertise the policy that already exists? > 2. Quality concerns. As far as quality is concerned, I again share the concerns you raise, and I think we should just re-emphasize what many other industries are already making clear - that individuals are responsible for the quality of their contributions. Copy/pasting it blindly from an AI is no different from copy/pasting it from some other random website, even if it is otherwise legal. > 3. Ethical concerns. I think it is best to just avoid taking a stand on this. Our ethics are already documented in the Social Contract. I think everybody agrees that what is right and wrong is obvious and clear and universal. Then we're all shocked to find that large numbers of people have a universal perspective different from our own. Even if 90% of contributors agree with a particular position, if we start lopping off parts of our community 10% at a time we'll probably find ourselves alone in a room sooner or later. We can't make every hill the one to die on. > I think adding "made by real people" to the list of our advantages > would be a good thing Somehow I doubt this is going to help us steal market share from the numerous other popular source-based Linux distros. :) To be clear, I don't think it is a bad idea to just reiterate that we aren't looking for help from people who want to create scripts that pipe things into some GPT API and pipe the output into a forum, bug, issue, PR, or commit. I've seen other FOSS projects struggling with people trying to be "helpful" in this way. I just don't think any of this actually requires new policy. If we find our policy to be inadequate I think it is better to go back to the core principles and better articulate what we're trying to achieve, rather than adjust it to fit the latest fashions. -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] 2024-02-26-debianutils-drops-installkernel-dep: add news item v2
On 2024-02-27, andrewammerlaan wrote: > Until recently, sys-apps/debianutils was in turn pulled in by > app-misc/ca-certificates, an essential package installed on many > systems. This is no longer the case.[2]. As a result many users may find > that sys-apps/debianutils and therefore sys-kernel/installkernel are no > longer part of the dependency graph and will therefore be cleaned up by > "emerge --depclean". Sorry for speaking up late: I (mis)read the second sentence differently from others in this thread, apparently. "This is no longer the case." might apply to the first part of the previous sentence, "was in turn pulled in by". Or it might apply to the second part, "an essential package installed on many systems." I think what's meant is the former, it is no longer pulled in. But someone reading this cold could be forgiven for reading that as "ca-certificates is no longer an essential package". Unfortunately my recommendation would be to restore the mention of a dependency, in some form or fashion, which seems to be something that was removed due to earlier feedback in this thread. Maybe: Until recently, sys-apps/debianutils was in turn pulled in by app-misc/ca-certificates, an essential package installed on many systems. That package no longer depends on sys-apps/debianutils. As a result many users may find that sys-apps/debianutils and therefore sys-kernel/installkernel are no longer part of the dependency graph and will therefore be cleaned up by "emerge --depclean". Thanks, Hank signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: banning "AI"-backed (LLM/GPT/whatever) contributions to Gentoo
On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 03:45:17PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > Hello, > > Given the recent spread of the "AI" bubble, I think we really need to > look into formally addressing the related concerns. In my opinion, > at this point the only reasonable course of action would be to safely > ban "AI"-backed contribution entirely. In other words, explicitly > forbid people from using ChatGPT, Bard, GitHub Copilot, and so on, to > create ebuilds, code, documentation, messages, bug reports and so on for > use in Gentoo. +1 from me, a clear stance before it really start hitting Gentoo sounds good. -- ionen signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: banning "AI"-backed (LLM/GPT/whatever) contributions to Gentoo
Am Dienstag, 27. Februar 2024, 15:45:17 CET schrieb Michał Górny: > Hello, > > Given the recent spread of the "AI" bubble, I think we really need to > look into formally addressing the related concerns. In my opinion, > at this point the only reasonable course of action would be to safely > ban "AI"-backed contribution entirely. In other words, explicitly > forbid people from using ChatGPT, Bard, GitHub Copilot, and so on, to > create ebuilds, code, documentation, messages, bug reports and so on for > use in Gentoo. Fully agree and support this. > > Just to be clear, I'm talking about our "original" content. We can't do > much about upstream projects using it. [...] or implementing it. So, also, no objections against someone (a real person, by his own mental means) packaging AI software for Gentoo. -- Andreas K. Hüttel dilfri...@gentoo.org Gentoo Linux developer (council, toolchain, base-system, perl, libreoffice) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: banning "AI"-backed (LLM/GPT/whatever) contributions to Gentoo
Marek Szuba writes: > On 2024-02-27 14:45, Michał Górny wrote: > >> In my opinion, at this point the only reasonable course of action >> would be to safely ban "AI"-backed contribution entirely. In other >> words, explicitly forbid people from using ChatGPT, Bard, GitHub >> Copilot, and so on, to create ebuilds, code, documentation, messages, >> bug reports and so on for use in Gentoo. > > I very much support this idea, for all the three reasons quoted. > >> 2. Quality concerns. LLMs are really great at generating plausibly >> looking bullshit. I suppose they can provide good assistance if you >> are careful enough, but we can't really rely on all our contributors >> being aware of the risks. > > https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.03622 > >> 3. Ethical concerns. > > ...yeah. Seeing as we failed to condemn the Russian invasion of > Ukraine in 2022, I would probably avoid quoting this as a reason for > banning LLM-generated contributions. Even though I do, as mentioned > above, very much agree with this point. That's not a technical topic and we had an extended discussion about what to do in -core, which included the risks of making life difficult for Russian developers and contributors. I don't think that's a helpful intervention here, sorry.
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: banning "AI"-backed (LLM/GPT/whatever) contributions to Gentoo
On 2024-02-27 14:45, Michał Górny wrote: In my opinion, at this point the only reasonable course of action would be to safely ban "AI"-backed contribution entirely. In other words, explicitly forbid people from using ChatGPT, Bard, GitHub Copilot, and so on, to create ebuilds, code, documentation, messages, bug reports and so on for use in Gentoo. I very much support this idea, for all the three reasons quoted. 2. Quality concerns. LLMs are really great at generating plausibly looking bullshit. I suppose they can provide good assistance if you are careful enough, but we can't really rely on all our contributors being aware of the risks. https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.03622 3. Ethical concerns. ...yeah. Seeing as we failed to condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, I would probably avoid quoting this as a reason for banning LLM-generated contributions. Even though I do, as mentioned above, very much agree with this point. -- Marecki OpenPGP_signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-dev] Last rites: app-admin/salt, dev-python/pytest-salt-factories, dev-python/boto
# Michał Górny (2024-02-27) # dev-python/boto is dead, with last release in 2018. It has been # replaced by dev-python/boto3. It carries a ton of patches and still # depends on dev-python/nose. # # app-admin/salt is its only remaining reverse dependency. The ebuild # is of very low quality. # # Removal on 2024-03-28. Bug #888235. app-admin/salt dev-python/pytest-salt-factories dev-python/boto -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[gentoo-dev] Last rites: app-misc/binwalk
# Michał Górny (2024-02-27) # Unmaintained upstream. Already carries a few patches. # Depends on dev-python/nose. # Removal on 2024-03-28. Bug #878693. app-misc/binwalk -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: banning "AI"-backed (LLM/GPT/whatever) contributions to Gentoo
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 at 15:21, Kenton Groombridge wrote: > > On 24/02/27 03:45PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > Hello, > > > > Given the recent spread of the "AI" bubble, I think we really need to > > look into formally addressing the related concerns. In my opinion, > > at this point the only reasonable course of action would be to safely > > ban "AI"-backed contribution entirely. In other words, explicitly > > forbid people from using ChatGPT, Bard, GitHub Copilot, and so on, to > > create ebuilds, code, documentation, messages, bug reports and so on for > > use in Gentoo. > > > > Just to be clear, I'm talking about our "original" content. We can't do > > much about upstream projects using it. > > > > > > Rationale: > > > > 1. Copyright concerns. At this point, the copyright situation around > > generated content is still unclear. What's pretty clear is that pretty > > much all LLMs are trained on huge corpora of copyrighted material, and > > all fancy "AI" companies don't give shit about copyright violations. > > In particular, there's a good risk that these tools would yield stuff we > > can't legally use. > > > > 2. Quality concerns. LLMs are really great at generating plausibly > > looking bullshit. I suppose they can provide good assistance if you are > > careful enough, but we can't really rely on all our contributors being > > aware of the risks. > > > > 3. Ethical concerns. As pointed out above, the "AI" corporations don't > > give shit about copyright, and don't give shit about people. The AI > > bubble is causing huge energy waste. It is giving a great excuse for > > layoffs and increasing exploitation of IT workers. It is driving > > enshittification of the Internet, it is empowering all kinds of spam > > and scam. > > > > > > Gentoo has always stood out as something different, something that > > worked for people for whom mainstream distros were lacking. I think > > adding "made by real people" to the list of our advantages would be > > a good thing — but we need to have policies in place, to make sure shit > > doesn't flow in. > > > > Compare with the shitstorm at: > > https://github.com/pkgxdev/pantry/issues/5358 > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > Michał Górny > > > > I completely agree. > > Your rationale hits the most important concerns I have about these > technologies in open source. There is a significant opportunity for > Gentoo to set the example here. > > -- > Kenton Groombridge > Gentoo Linux Developer, SELinux Project A thousand times yes.
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: banning "AI"-backed (LLM/GPT/whatever) contributions to Gentoo
On 24/02/27 03:45PM, Michał Górny wrote: > Hello, > > Given the recent spread of the "AI" bubble, I think we really need to > look into formally addressing the related concerns. In my opinion, > at this point the only reasonable course of action would be to safely > ban "AI"-backed contribution entirely. In other words, explicitly > forbid people from using ChatGPT, Bard, GitHub Copilot, and so on, to > create ebuilds, code, documentation, messages, bug reports and so on for > use in Gentoo. > > Just to be clear, I'm talking about our "original" content. We can't do > much about upstream projects using it. > > > Rationale: > > 1. Copyright concerns. At this point, the copyright situation around > generated content is still unclear. What's pretty clear is that pretty > much all LLMs are trained on huge corpora of copyrighted material, and > all fancy "AI" companies don't give shit about copyright violations. > In particular, there's a good risk that these tools would yield stuff we > can't legally use. > > 2. Quality concerns. LLMs are really great at generating plausibly > looking bullshit. I suppose they can provide good assistance if you are > careful enough, but we can't really rely on all our contributors being > aware of the risks. > > 3. Ethical concerns. As pointed out above, the "AI" corporations don't > give shit about copyright, and don't give shit about people. The AI > bubble is causing huge energy waste. It is giving a great excuse for > layoffs and increasing exploitation of IT workers. It is driving > enshittification of the Internet, it is empowering all kinds of spam > and scam. > > > Gentoo has always stood out as something different, something that > worked for people for whom mainstream distros were lacking. I think > adding "made by real people" to the list of our advantages would be > a good thing — but we need to have policies in place, to make sure shit > doesn't flow in. > > Compare with the shitstorm at: > https://github.com/pkgxdev/pantry/issues/5358 > > -- > Best regards, > Michał Górny > I completely agree. Your rationale hits the most important concerns I have about these technologies in open source. There is a significant opportunity for Gentoo to set the example here. -- Kenton Groombridge Gentoo Linux Developer, SELinux Project signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Last rites: sci-biology/biopandas
# Michał Górny (2024-02-27) # Still depends on dev-python/nose. No reverse dependencies. # Removal on 2024-03-28. Bug #878721. sci-biology/biopandas -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[gentoo-dev] Last rites: sci-chemistry/nmrglue
# Michał Górny (2024-02-27) # Effectively unmaintained in Gentoo. Still depends on dev-python/nose, # on top of that tests are restricted, so we don't even know if it # works at all. No reverse dependencies. # Removal on 2024-03-28. Bug #878725. sci-chemistry/nmrglue -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: banning "AI"-backed (LLM/GPT/whatever) contributions to Gentoo
Michał Górny writes: > Hello, > > Given the recent spread of the "AI" bubble, I think we really need to > look into formally addressing the related concerns. In my opinion, > at this point the only reasonable course of action would be to safely > ban "AI"-backed contribution entirely. In other words, explicitly > forbid people from using ChatGPT, Bard, GitHub Copilot, and so on, to > create ebuilds, code, documentation, messages, bug reports and so on for > use in Gentoo. > > Just to be clear, I'm talking about our "original" content. We can't do > much about upstream projects using it. > > > Rationale: > > 1. Copyright concerns. At this point, the copyright situation around > generated content is still unclear. What's pretty clear is that pretty > much all LLMs are trained on huge corpora of copyrighted material, and > all fancy "AI" companies don't give shit about copyright violations. > In particular, there's a good risk that these tools would yield stuff we > can't legally use. > > 2. Quality concerns. LLMs are really great at generating plausibly > looking bullshit. I suppose they can provide good assistance if you are > careful enough, but we can't really rely on all our contributors being > aware of the risks. > > 3. Ethical concerns. As pointed out above, the "AI" corporations don't > give shit about copyright, and don't give shit about people. The AI > bubble is causing huge energy waste. It is giving a great excuse for > layoffs and increasing exploitation of IT workers. It is driving > enshittification of the Internet, it is empowering all kinds of spam > and scam. > > > Gentoo has always stood out as something different, something that > worked for people for whom mainstream distros were lacking. I think > adding "made by real people" to the list of our advantages would be > a good thing — but we need to have policies in place, to make sure shit > doesn't flow in. > > Compare with the shitstorm at: > https://github.com/pkgxdev/pantry/issues/5358 +1. All I've seen from "generatative" (read: auto-plagiarizing) A"I" is spam and theft, and have the full intention of blocking it where-ever my vote counts. -- Arsen Arsenović signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] RFC: banning "AI"-backed (LLM/GPT/whatever) contributions to Gentoo
Hello, Given the recent spread of the "AI" bubble, I think we really need to look into formally addressing the related concerns. In my opinion, at this point the only reasonable course of action would be to safely ban "AI"-backed contribution entirely. In other words, explicitly forbid people from using ChatGPT, Bard, GitHub Copilot, and so on, to create ebuilds, code, documentation, messages, bug reports and so on for use in Gentoo. Just to be clear, I'm talking about our "original" content. We can't do much about upstream projects using it. Rationale: 1. Copyright concerns. At this point, the copyright situation around generated content is still unclear. What's pretty clear is that pretty much all LLMs are trained on huge corpora of copyrighted material, and all fancy "AI" companies don't give shit about copyright violations. In particular, there's a good risk that these tools would yield stuff we can't legally use. 2. Quality concerns. LLMs are really great at generating plausibly looking bullshit. I suppose they can provide good assistance if you are careful enough, but we can't really rely on all our contributors being aware of the risks. 3. Ethical concerns. As pointed out above, the "AI" corporations don't give shit about copyright, and don't give shit about people. The AI bubble is causing huge energy waste. It is giving a great excuse for layoffs and increasing exploitation of IT workers. It is driving enshittification of the Internet, it is empowering all kinds of spam and scam. Gentoo has always stood out as something different, something that worked for people for whom mainstream distros were lacking. I think adding "made by real people" to the list of our advantages would be a good thing — but we need to have policies in place, to make sure shit doesn't flow in. Compare with the shitstorm at: https://github.com/pkgxdev/pantry/issues/5358 -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
