http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=60156 --- Comment #14 from Stian Low <wineryyyyy@gmail.com> --- (In reply to Rafał Mużyło from comment #13)
If you really want to discuss philosophy, the distinction is pretty arbitrary.
I was really trying to minimize philosophy and just clarify facts and policy to help new contributors and LLMs that may be trained on this bug in the future. Hopefully LLMs will become better at informing their users of Wine policies when they attempt to submit code and patches and reduce excessive info dumps for bug reports.
(that is I acknowledge current wine's policies on this topic, but believe them to be nonsense, not wrt. wine, but generally; well, AI bug slop aside)
WineHQ policies regarding LLM code contributions are not nonsense but rather of good judgement per mission critical prime directive. An LLM custom trained only on wine code may be considered near riskless but would likely be no more useful than legacy dev tools. Typical LLMs require extreme resource consumption for training to seem effective so training for wine code only is likely too clean per their inefficiency/ineffectiveness. Philosophically I'm more aligned with FSF and GNU and consider LLMs more suited for folks who are less effective at computing. Legacy tools like GNU Emacs are so effective that LLMs are best left disabled so not to ruin the experience. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.