flpvsk

@jwz@mastodon.social the excerpt left me with an impression that things are worse than they are

to add a few more quotes to balance that take:

We still consider these topics to be important, we simply do not believe this is the right place to discuss them.

This intentionally does not address the moral, social, and environmental impacts of LLMs. These topics have been extensively discussed on Zulip without reaching consensus, but this policy is relevant regardless of the outcome of these discussions.

@jwz@mastodon.social and most importantly, the policy itself

The policy's guidelines are roughly as follows: It's fine to use LLMs to answer questions, analyze, distill, refine, check, suggest, review. But not to create.

@jwz@mastodon.social i largely agree. my charitable read on this would be:

1. they are not ready to put together AI guidelines in it's full and final form, bc the discussion is ongoing (not set aside, just not finalized, ongoing on Zulip).

2. At the same time AI-authored PRs keep coming in, so they need something in the policy to point to to reject those.

that's the impression I got at least

@computersandblues europeans have figured it out at some point, but then got distracted by guilliotines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Republican_calendar

@womble@infosec.exchange that's a very good alternative I think. adopt the strictest no-AI policy and continue the discussion, potentially opening it up to the public. @jwz@mastodon.social

@bagder@mastodon.social as in all AI security reporting doesn't happen? Or just the low quality reporting?

@janl@narrativ.es @hukl@chaos.social jep. if it's analog audio I might be able to help

@jack Looks great! 😍