Hi Antonio,
Am Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 07:41:26AM -0300 schrieb Antonio Terceiro:
> 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.
Fully ACK.
> 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".
The fact that we need a patch for devotee to increase the number of
options to vote on should motivate us to step back and think again. For
me the only sensible option is "Further discussion". I can't rank
sensibly the options I could agree with and discussion here is draining
from my motivation to read this list a lot.
> 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.
I know "+1" mails should be avoioded - but I can't say it better.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
https://fam-tille.de
