[thanks to Kurt for keeping up with this] On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 08:04:21AM +0800, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > We currently have 7 options on the website and NoTA, so 8 on the > ballot. There are 2 other recent options with some seconds, possibly > creating 10 options.
This is ridiculous, and means that even people who actually agree are talking past each other. There are only 2 options: we either a) ban LLM-assisted contributions completely, or b) tolerate LLM-assisted contributions under a set of constraints. I understand that Condorcet voting is supposed to be robust in the face of multiple options, but I cannot wrap my mind around having 10 different options for this issue, because that's a fantasy, product of our individualist decision-making method. "Oh look, this is mostly what I think, but is missing a few bits here and there. I will make my own then". We are in the eye of the tornado and won't be able or redefine our process here and now, so I don't expect to influence the current vote. But we would need a process by which we can identify clear, distinct directions for votes, and have the texts to be voted on built collectively, to avoid this insanity.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
