On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 09:23:19AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: > On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 02:13:01PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 08:45:19AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: > > > > So at all times I think ensuring the human element is aware that they need > > > > to do some kind of checking/filtering is key. > > > > > > > > But that can be handled by a carefully worded policy document. > > > > > > Right. The prupose of this series is not to create a new LLM policy but > > > rather try and enforce our existing set of policies on LLMs. > > > > I get that, but as you can see from my original reply, my concern is more > > as to the non-technical consequences of this series. > > > > I retain my view that we need an explicit AI policy doc first, and ideally > > this would be tempered by input at the maintainer's summit before any of > > this proceeds. > > > > I think adding anything like this before that would have unfortunate > > unintended consequences. > > > > And as a maintainer who does a fair bit of review, I'm likely to be on the > > front lines to that :) > > Oh, appologies, I'm not trying to push for this to be included urgently: > if there's interest in waiting with this until after maintainer's > summit/LPC I don't have any objection with that. Awesome, thanks; yeah I think this is the best approach to ensure we have our ducks in a row. > > My point was more that I want to get this series in a "happy" state so > we have it available whenever we come up with a policy. Ack! > > I'm thinking that no matter what we land on at the end, we'll need > something like this patch series to try and enforce that on the LLM side > of things. Sure, practically speaking it's unlikely that the decision will be 'absolutely not', in which case we ought to be prepared as to how to implement what's required. > > -- > Thanks, > Sasha Cheers, Lorenzo
