Hi,
It's a good thing that
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/AI_policy
has been voted, and that it mentions:
> This motion can be revisited, should a case been made over such a
tool that does not pose copyright, ethical and quality concerns.
I wanted to provide some meat to
On Tue, 2024-02-27 at 15:45 +0100, 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
On Fri, 2024-03-01 at 07:06 +, Sam James wrote:
> Another person approached me after this RFC and asked whether tooling
> restricted to the current repo would be okay. For me, that'd be mostly
> acceptable, given it won't make suggestions based on copyrighted code.
I think an important
On Tue, 2024-02-27 at 18:04 +, Sam James wrote:
> 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 ;)
I don't think it's really possible or feasible to
El 27/2/24 a las 15:45, Michał Górny escribió:
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
On Tuesday, February 27th, 2024 at 3:45 PM, 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
On Tue, Mar 05, 2024 at 06:12:06 +, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> At the top, I noted that it will be possible in future for AI generation
> to be used in a good, safe way, and we should provide some signals to
> the researchers behind the AI industry on this matter.
>
> What should it have?
> -
(Full disclosure: I presently work for a non-FAANG cloud company
with a primary business focus in providing GPU access, for AI & other
workloads; I don't feel that is a conflict of interest, but understand
that others might not feel the same way).
Yes, we need to formally address the concerns.
Matt Jolly writes:
>> But where do we draw the line? Are translation tools like DeepL
>> allowed? I don't see much of a copyright issue for these.
>
> I'd also like to jump in and play devil's advocate. There's a fair
> chance that this is because I just got back from a
> supercomputing/research
Hi,
> Compare with the shitstorm at:
> https://github.com/pkgxdev/pantry/issues/5358
Thank you for this, it made my day.
Though I'm just a proxy maintainer for now, I also support this initiative,
there should be some guard rails set up around LLM usage.
> 1. Copyright concerns. At this
On 2/28/24 6:06 AM, Matt Jolly wrote:
>
>> But where do we draw the line? Are translation tools like DeepL
>> allowed? I don't see much of a copyright issue for these.
>
> I'd also like to jump in and play devil's advocate. There's a fair
> chance that this is because I just got back from a
>
On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 1:50 PM Arthur Zamarin wrote:
>
> I know that GitHub Copilot can be limited to licenses, and even to just
> the current repository. Even though, I'm not sure that the copyright can
> be attributed to "me" and not the "AI" - so still gray area.
So, AI copyright is a bit of
On 27/02/2024 16.45, 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
On Wed, 2024-02-28 at 11:08 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, 28 Feb 2024, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> > 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
But where do we draw the line? Are translation tools like DeepL
allowed? I don't see much of a copyright issue for these.
I'd also like to jump in and play devil's advocate. There's a fair
chance that this is because I just got back from a
supercomputing/research conf where LLMs were the hot
On Tue, 2024-02-27 at 15:45 +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
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024, Michał Górny wrote:
> 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
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
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
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
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
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.
>
>
> 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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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,
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
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
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
34 matches
Mail list logo
