diff options
Diffstat (limited to '2026')
| -rw-r--r-- | 2026/talks/llms.md | 61 |
1 files changed, 58 insertions, 3 deletions
diff --git a/2026/talks/llms.md b/2026/talks/llms.md index 63cf35c4..61dc86f8 100644 --- a/2026/talks/llms.md +++ b/2026/talks/llms.md @@ -6,16 +6,71 @@ <!-- You can manually edit this file to update the abstract, add links, etc. ---> -# Meetup/panel about LLMs? -Participants +# [Panel] Emacs, LLMs, and Free Software: Access, Agency, and Accountability + +Participants: + + **Panel members are being finalized** [[!inline pages="internal(2026/info/llms-before)" raw="yes"]] +The topic of AI (as a broad concept) and its flagship technology - +LLMs - is rather controversial. Some of us enthusiastically accept the +technology and its potential to change lives for the better; some are +more cautious, or outright question the long-term consequences for +individuals, countries, and the whole world; raise ethical concerns, +or point to high energy consumption (especially concentrated in USA). +However, there is no doubt that Emacs (and the whole world) cannot +ignore the topic. + +The Emacs community already has both proponents and opponents of +the LLMs and a number of LLM integrations have appeared over the +last few years. Here, we have brought a number of Emacs users +with very different views about AI together, to make the range of +positions explicit and to explore how Emacs and its community can +support different approaches without fracturing. + +We tried our best to lay out the questions constructively, and to +avoid the general topics that have already been beaten to death +in online discussions across the web. We ask both the panel +participants and the EmacsConf audience to approach the +discussion the same way: with the goal of understanding each +other's positions and finding ways for different choices to +coexist. + +P.S. There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels :) + +Questions: + +1. If you were to imagine an ideal AI software you would use with + Emacs, how would it look like? How would it **not** look like? What + freedoms it would need to have? Feel free to answer anything, not + limiting yourself to current LLM architectures. + +2. What is the most useful application of LLMs with Emacs for you + personally? If you are not using LLMs, imagine that there is an + ideal AI or complex automation software you would be willing to use + and come up with such application. + +3. What is the most critical use case in your Emacs workflows where + you would **avoid** using AI? + +4. Imagine that there is an LLM-generated code submitted to Emacs that + implements long-awaited feature (for example, multi-threading + support in Emacs or time zone support in Org). As a maintainer, + under what conditions, if any, would you accept LLM-generated code, + and what would need to change for you to accept it? As a user, + would you be willing to use such a new feature? You can answer as + a maintainer, user, or both. + +5. What is one thing the Emacs community should build, document, or + support (for newcomers or otherwise) around LLMs/AI in the next + year? And one thing it should decline to do? + Related: <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacsconf-org/2026-08/msg00007.html> - [[!inline pages="internal(2026/info/llms-after)" raw="yes"]] [[!inline pages="internal(2026/info/llms-nav)" raw="yes"]] |