On 5/6/26 03:33, Ian Eure wrote:
Hi Hugo,
Hugo Buddelmeijer via "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System
distribution." <[email protected]> writes:
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.
Oblige others to what?
Your claim seems obviously true at face value: "users should have the
freedom to run software which doesn’t contain LLM output". As in, not
having such freedom would entail people forcing others to run software
containing LLM output.
I think both LLM lovers and haters on this mailing list would agree that
people should not ever be forced to run any software at all whatsoever
(irrespective of any LLM use).
So I was inferring that you meant something more: that people should
actively help users with achieving that freedom, and that is not
necessarily true. It might be true, but that is a much different claim.
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.)
Whether I fly on a plane or not has no effect on the copyrightability of
my code; use of an LLM may.
I inferred from your statement that "users should have the freedom to
run software that doesn't contain LLM output" that your aversion against
LLM's was mostly about something else than copyright; that you have
ethical concerns.
And it is fair to discuss more than copyright. Free software is (to me)
primarily about freedom (through software). Copyright is only a tool,
not the goal.
I wouldn’t hold it against someone if they flew on a plane, but if I
told them I had reasons for not flying, and they argued with me about
those reasons, demanding proof to satisfy them that my objections were
legitimate, said that all travel would happen via plane, and made sure
to mention often how great first class is, I would absolutely hold
*that* against them. This last sentence is not about planes at all.
In that sentence, you do not ask anyone to do anything. In particular,
you have not asked anyone to stop flying, and you have not asked anyone
to disclose whether they fly. Are you sure you have the same sentiment
about LLM use?
If someone would make a P.R. to Guix with LLM generated output, would
you ask them to disclose that? Would you ask (or entice) them to stop
doing that? Or would you let it be? If you do want to restrict others,
then it is only fair to be asked to substantiate your objections.
I don't even care about the P.R.s, or the copyright, I care about the
essence. I'm trying to figure out what the core objections are, because
this is very powerful technology, so we should understand it well.
The writings of the free software movement are excellent and those of
the electronic frontier foundation are too. They are very specific in
their complaints and their remedies. They are very convincing. Is
there really nothing like that for the AI debate?
(And if there isn't, and we are not allowed to ask people, then how do
we get anywhere?)
Hugo
