Re: Non-LLM example where we do not in practice use original training data
On Wed, May 07, 2025 at 07:36:13PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
I think Thorsten Glaser's proposal on the surface looks more in line
with what I would want to see, but I don't think we understand the full
implications of any of the proposals right now.
https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2025/04/msg00118.html
Some approach to have LLM tools in 'main' when they can work with models
that would be appropriate for inclusion in 'main' seems fine to me.
Then we can ship models for that tool in 'non-free', for people who want
to work with some larger model. I don't see a need to permit LLM tools
in 'main' that are unable to work with any libre LLM model, those tools
could go into 'contrib'.
I'm not talking about LLMs. I barely care about LLMs more than
I care about megahal. My fictitious example is based on an
actual problem we have with computer vision classifier models.
So, if the models which already exist in main cannot exist in
main (either under current policy, Thorsten's proposal, or Mo's
proposal), are we going to pretend that they're not there? Are
we going to throw them out? Both those things are bad for our
users. Are we going to fix them instead? If so, how? Thorsten's
§5 handwaves implementation details away, but I think that this is
actually very important, and I don't even need face detection
technology to use my computer.
Reply to: