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 discuss improvements of the specific phrasing "created with the assistance of Natural Language Processing artificial intelligence tools" which may not be the most optimal. First, I think we should not limit this to LLMs / NLP stuff, when it should be about all algorithmically/automatically generated content, which could all cause a flood of time-wasting, low-quality information. Second, I think we should define what would be acceptable use cases of algorithmically-generated content; I'd suggest for a starting point, the combination of: - The algorithm generating such content is proper F/LOSS - In the case of a machine learning algorithm, the dataset allowing to generate such algorithm is proper F/LOSS itself (with traceability of all of its bits) - The algorithm generating such content is reproducible (training produces the exact same bits) - The algorithm did not publish the content automatically: all the content was reviewed and approved by a human, who bears responsibility for their contribution, and the content has been flagged as having been generated using $tool. Third, I think a "developer certificate of origin" policy could be augmented with the "bot did not publish the content automatically" bits and should also be mandated in the context of bug reporting, so as to have a "human gate" for issues discovered by automation / tinderboxes. Best regards, -- Jérôme
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
