Home | Notifications | New Note | Local | Federated | Search | Logout
Note Detail
Reply to @PuercoPop@mastodon.social
dave@dthompson@toot.cat (2026-07-29 04:37:20)
@PuercoPop my reasoning is that if a GCD expressed in the negative (prohibition of genAI) could not achieve consensus then it would be good to explore if a GCD expressed in the positive (permission to use genAI) could achieve consensus. if consensus cannot be achieved in either case then what does that mean?
---Reply---
Khleedril@khleedril@cyberplace.social (2026-07-29 05:14:40)
@dthompson @PuercoPop It would mean that the community is definitely split on the issue, to the point where a decision cannot be made and the project will become apathetic to AI; meaning in effect that AI will be allowed and therefore wins by default.
I kind of agree with the sentiment that this new GCD will only help their goal of winning through sabotage. I would very much have preferred to keep the arguments weighed against allowing AI in.
Reply
---Replies---
dave@dthompson@toot.cat (2026-07-29 05:17:31)
@khleedril @PuercoPop if nearly everyone rejects one GCD but only one person rejects the other, is that the same amount split?
PuercoPop@PuercoPop@mastodon.social (2026-07-29 05:31:39)
@khleedril @dthompson
> I would very much have preferred to keep the arguments weighed against allowing AI in.
imho @baleine's reply was a good way to move the discussion forward. "Ok, what are the specific changes you want to make to the document". That said, any reasonable process should include time limits to prevent gerrymandering.
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2026-07/msg00254.html