Re: [NonGNU ELPA] New package: llm

[Jim Porter <jporterbugs@gmail.com>]

On 8/14/2023 10:14 PM, Andrew Hyatt wrote:
> I don't doubt that or disagree, I'd just rather us oppose it in 
> documentation or code comments, not during runtime.

I'd be hesitant to add support for these LLMs even *with* a warning 
message at runtime. That's not to say there should never be a GNU 
project with support for any LLM, but that I think we should tread 
carefully. Among other things, I'm curious about what the FSF would say 
about the *models* the LLMs use. Are they "just data", or should we 
treat them more like object code? What does an LLM that fully adheres to 
FSF principles actually look like?

I'm not personally aware of any official FSF stance on LLMs, so that 
would be the next step as I see it, before publishing any code. Again, 
that doesn't mean Emacs should never have an LLM package, just that some 
detailed guidance from the FSF would make it a lot clearer (to me, at 
least) how to progress.

- Jim