>>>>> "Tiago" == Tiago Bortoletto Vaz <ti...@debian.org> writes:
Tiago> Hi Jose,
Tiago> Thanks for you input, I have a few comments:
Tiago> On Fri, May 03, 2024 at 11:02:47AM -0300, Jose-Luis Rivas wrote:
>> On Thu May 2, 2024 at 9:21 PM -03, Tiago Bortoletto Vaz wrote:
>> > Right, note that they acknowledged this policy is a working in
progress. Not
>> > perfect, but 'something needed to be done, quickly'. It's hard to find
a
>> > balance here, but I kind of share this sense of urgency.
>> >
>> > [...]
>> >
>> > This point resonates with problems we might be facing already, for
instance
>> > in the NM process and also in Debconf submissions (there's no point of
going
>> > into details here because so far we can't proof anything, and even if
we could,
>> > of course we wouldn't bring any of the involved to the public arena).
So I'm
>> > actually more concerned about LLM being mindlessly applied in our
communication
>> > processes (NM, bts, debconf, irc, planet, wiki, website, debian.net
stuff, etc)
>> > than one using some AI-assisted code in our infra, at least for now.
>> >
>>
>> Hi Tiago,
>>
>> It seems you have more context than the rest which provides a sense of
>> urgency for you, where others do not have this same information and
>> can't share this sense of urgency.
Tiago> Yes.
Oh, wow, I had no idea that your argument for urgency came from the NM
case.
I actually think that NM is not benefitted from a policy here.
We already have a fairly good standard: did you prove to your
application manager, your advocates, and the reviewers (FD or DAM as
appropriate) that you can be trusted and that you have the necessary
technical and other skills to be a DD.
I think it's fairly clear that using an LLM to answer questions in the
NM process does not show that you have the technical skills.
(Using it instead of reading a man page for similar results and then
going and doing the work might be fine, but cutting and pasting an
answer to an application question into the message you send to your AM
clearly doesn't demonstrate your own technical skill.)
I as an AM would find that an applicant using an LLM as more than a
possibly incorrect man page without telling me would violate trust. I
don't need a policy to come to that conclusion. I don't think I would
have any trouble convincing DAM or FD to back my decision.
I think coming up with a policy for this situation is going to be
tricky.
Do I mind an applicant asking an LLM to refresh their memory on how to
import a new upstream version?
No, not at all.
Do they need to cite the LLM in their answer?
If it really is a memory refresh and they know the material well enough
to have confidence that the LLM answer is correct, I do not think they
need to cite.
If they don't know the material well enough to know the LLM is correct,
then and LLM is a bad choice.
But the same is true of a human I might ask.
If I asked you to remind me something about importing a new upstream,
and it really was just a reminder, I would not cite your contribution
unless I used a significant chunk of text you had written.
If you gave me bad info and I didn't catch it, then we learn I probably
should not be trusted to pick good sources for my education.
--Sam
