On 3/5/26 22:09, Ian Eure wrote:
Hi Untrusem,
Untrusem <[email protected]> writes:
So that's why I wanted a way to know when a guix package updates or
gets added. It should explicitly mention that LLMs is being used in
the software to let the users know that the software they are using is
slop or not.
I completely agree with you: users should have the freedom to run
software which doesn’t contain LLM output.
The freedom yes, but that freedom does not necessarily oblige others.
I'd like software written by people who don't fly (as I see that as a
bigger existential risk than LLMs), but I'm not going to ask people to
disclose whether they fly. (And I wouldn't hold it against them
personally if they do fly.)
Are folks contributing version
bumps responsible for auditing the changes in the new version for the
presence of LLM use?
Yes. Assuming we agree that LLM use is something we find worthy of
flagging.
Bumping a version already requires some (mostly unwritten) checks, in
particular whether the license is still correct an in accordance with
our philosophy. And whether any libraries are bundled, etc.
Someone bumping a version takes on some responsibility. I at least try
to check the Changelog for anything weird.
[1]: Some maintaners deliberately obscure presence and extent of LLM
tools in their projects.
I think that is where the responsibility of a version-bumper ends. We
need to have some assumption of good faith. Packages by bad-faith
authors should not be in Guix at all, irrespective of LLM use.
We probably don't all have the same definitions. E.g. I wouldn't ever
have thought that asking ChatGPT how to do something as something that
could possibly need disclosure.
[2]: https://codeberg.org/small-hack/open-slopware
Ah good that that list contains alternatives as well. Because the only
way prevent LLM use is to have people explicitly declare they don't, as
the default will be to use LLMs.
Hugo
