Hi Guillem, On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 06:48:41PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > Besides the typos already mentioned, I found some issues below: thanks for writing down these issues. I haven't reacted earlier to include them, because I was both too tired from this (whole) discussion already and also because I don't think these nuances matter much. > > We don't have a concern with the LLM _technology_ as such: it's just maths and > > enough training material, which outputs a very large set of numbers that we can > > use to infer new material from existing material. But we cannot talk about the > > LLM technology without talking about who is pushing for its usage, who is doing > > the training and how, what effect those have on our limited resources, and what > > are the economical and political motives of these. > > This feels to me like it contradicts a paragraph down below, which I'll > reorder [0] here only for juxtaposition purposes: I dont think so, also this appearant contradiction has been addressed in the proposal. Cars are also just horse carriages with an engine and then 2 tons of steel added and thousands of kilometers highways around. Cars per se are not evil. > > Foremost we don't understand how anyone can agree that global LLM usage > > accellerates the destruction of our ecosystem, planet earth, and not feel like > > that is a deal-breaker. > The way this is being conveyed feels a bit odd. It does not include > "anyone that does not agree that LLM usage accelerates such effect". And > it also seems to contradict a paragraph below [1] about not condemning > people? I'm not sure saying one cannot understand how people cannot see they are harming the planet is condemning them? > Perhaps better to state this in a positive way. Something along the > lines of "We consider <thing> has <effect> to be a deal-breaker."? you are probably right, but time was running out and i was tired. > > To often the only response we've seen to this point was that other activities > > are also bad (some even worse) for the climate. How is this even an argument? > > The planet is burning, we should try to stop that as much and as fast as we can! > > If others aren't stopping, isn't that even more reason to compensate for their > > irresponsible actions? > This feels more like text that would appear in a mail reply as part of > an argument, than in a project statement. Perhaps reword to avoid the > questions? perhaps. (also this was taken from a mail linked below this proposal :) -- cheers, Holger ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C ⠈⠳⣄ “Get it all on record now — get the films — get the witnesses — because somewhere down the road of history some bastard will get up and say that this never happened.” - Dwight D. Eisenhower, after visiting liberated concentration camps in April 1945.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature