Re: Help building Pen.el (GPT for emacs)

[Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support>]

* Shane Mulligan <mullikine@gmail.com> [2021-07-23 16:40]:
> Hi Jean, Eli, GNU,
> 
> > "open source"
> I am referring to free software in the spirit
> of GNU. Free as in freedom, from oppression,
> from an attack against creative and cognitive
> intelligence.

Alright, though in GNU project we don't use the term "Open Source" as
it was never about it. The term is "free software". Open Source is
today vague, people use the term "Open" for things which are not so
open, including source code, there is open source from Microsoft which
is proprietary and yet called "open source", there we have now OpenAI
which is not free software, and so on.

See "Open":
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Open

> Now you ask again and I'll give you another, but you are missing the
> point by focusing on one example when the possibilities are
> infinite.

I hope that generated code will not take longer time to verify then
writing it by hand.

Not to mistake me, if the databases are free as in the definition of
free software and your code is free, then I am definitely for that,
and I like AI, we have too little of the artificial intelligence in
21st century. We are under developed civilization in that regard. The
movie 2001: A Space Odyssey was made in 1968, prediction was already
that we would have space ships with Hal AI that guides us, but we are
not far from bedroom with Amazon spying "AI" devices.

It is very important to have all parts free as in free software
definition.

Review again:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

> GPT turns emacs into something very powerful beyond your current
> comprehension. It's so profound that it will replace many of the
> online and offline services you may have come to take for
> granted. It goes way beyond that too.

Yes, I am asking for less abstract, more practical examples. I have no
use from the hype.

> Here is another demo.
> The below instructions were given to me by the
> tutor in Pen.el when I asked it for help.
> 
>     There are two ways to quit Emacs, the hard way, and the easy way.
>     In the hard way, you type M-x kill-emacs, and press enter.
>     In the easy way, you press C-x C-c.

I have to look on it realistically from my angle, so I do not see any
use in this example. I see that AI guessed something and generated
text. I would not agree that M-x kill-emacs is hard way, and that C-x
C-c is easy way. I would rather say that easy way is to choose File
and Quit menu options.

> The following is a prompt that created this interactive function.
> 
> #+BEGIN_SRC yaml
>   prompt: |
>     This is a conversation between a human and a brilliant AI.
>     The topic is "<2>".
> 
>     Human: Hello, are you my <1> tutor?
>     ###
>     AI: Hi there.
>     Yes I am.
>     How can I help you?
>     ###
>     Human: Thanks. I have a . <2>
>     ###
>     AI: I would be happy to answer your question.
> #+END_SRC

I am sorry, I wish to see example of usefulness. I will go over your
previous examples. It is definitely possible that I neglected it, but
you know from beginning that I am interested in this. I have my
reasons why I am interested as I do generate a lot of text and I wish
to spare my writings. In the above quote I do not see that prompt, and
how is relevant to how to quit Emacs.

> Here is the recording of me doing that:
> 
> https://asciinema.org/a/SCUhm3l11N3w5eilUfewBDCiP

I have clicked on that link and could not find exact reference. I
found "haskell lsp with HIE", something about "htop" and
"stackexchange". 

> A prompt may be defined by type names alone,
> plus the version of a LM; the rest is inferred
> or subjective to peer to peer prompts:
> 
> #+BEGIN_SRC emacs-lisp
>   (defprompt ("short lines of code" "regex"))
> #+END_SRC
> 
> You haven't yet understood the profundity of GPT and
> doing a great disservice to free software by
> stifling imaginary programming inside emacs.

The above hype paragraphs are suspiciously AI-looking.

> > You are more or less proposing the same conflict to come to Emacs and
> > I did not see where is your solution?

> Emacs is dead without GPT. That's why I raised the issue.  It's dead
> because it can be imagined by LMs and will lose its power. It'll be
> just another imagined environment.  Software is changing and Emacs
> can't miss out because it represents freedom.

That was not context of my question. Did you read last email to Eli
about it?

It seem like you either ignored my question or you keep using AI to
generate hype about it.

Julia Reda from Germany is at least trying to answer my question
related to licensing compliance here:
https://juliareda.eu/2021/07/github-copilot-is-not-infringing-your-copyright/

So there are at least ways to go to understand how it complies or
could comply to licenses or be liberated from licenses.

> You're failing to see the full picture here.
> It's absolutely vital for emacs' survival to
> have GPT incorporated. Make it happen.

I'm having a hard time following your proposal. I'm not sure what
you're asking. But I am too old to understand it. Though it is not my
age that matters. It is your experience, your knowledge, your
education, your understanding, your wisdom. In all of these you and me
have to be the best judge of what is good for you and me and what is
not.

The above paragraph was created by AI with small corrections. It says
nothing just as the above quoted paragraph says nothing
essential. "full picture", "absolutely vital", "Emacs survival", "Make
it happen" -- that is sales pitch. And I am sales manager btw.
 
That AI is useful in general, no need to convince me. Question was
about licensing and I see that some activists like Julia Reda, which I
have contacted previously in relation to copyright issues in EU, have
found legal justifications for licensing compliance. 

That is what I wanted to know.

The issue is however not closed with the assumptions of Julia Reda, as
she may know EU laws, but not all jurisdictions are quite aligned, so
we have still to be vigilant and follow up on that.

IMHO, you should incorporate justifications used by Mrs. Reda in your
commentary or README files with references so that licensing becomes
clear for future readers.

> > As soon as anything is published in public
> > without compliance to licenses it generates
> > problems.
> Prompts are completely at the license of the
> person who created it, even if they are
> queries to GPT3.

If prompts never appear in published works those are not relevant. If
they do appear, their licensing compliance is assured by programmer or
author. Even prompts could be coming from proprietary software.

> My suggestions:
> - Create prompts database
>   - So people can collaborate on open source prompts
>   - So people can extend emacs with language models
>   - So people know it's ok to use their imagination and emacs supports
> creative intelligence
> - Integrate prompt functions into emacs somehow?
>   - defprompt
> - Optionally ship GPT-neo and GPT-j with emacs
> - Consider creating a prompting server
> - Consider a database for saving generations

I find it all goods ideas, I just wish I could see more practical
example:

- prompts database, should be on the website? Where? Hosted by which
  party? Is it centralized or decentralized?

- collaboration by which means? Email, chat? Website forum? How
  exactly?

- I understand your 3rd point.

- GPT-neo and GPT-j is how big?



-- 
Jean

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns

In support of Richard M. Stallman
https://stallmansupport.org/