cr3ative

No, my example is one of where you end up if you start doing granular definition (and demanding to know where the line is, to the point of absurdity).

A broad stroke based on community trust and your own self-evaluation of a very simple rule is acceptable here.

If a contributor wishes to poke the edges of the policy to try and find the line of acceptable AI/LLM usage in the project, they are probably not the kind of contributor they want.

I don't feel like any further definition is required. You would surely know if you had used an LLM, AI or agent while creating the code. Keeping things broad allows for simpler enforcement, otherwise you end up in the weeds arguing if seeing the Google AI search summary counts as LLM influence.

A tractor, probably.

Ha, and I completely missed the "Linux" part of your post, sorry. I do enjoy both. Apple, like you say, is a nice default for me because they clearly care about privacy to a reasonable extent.

Plus, the HDMI-CEC "just works".

"This is a concern broadly and future looking" does not in any way mean LG TVs are doing it now; there would be proof of this if they were, it would be easy to catch.

Apple TV.

That is an _incredible_ claim, please back it up.

The blog mentions AI and untrusted input sanitisation. Hope your day gets better.

I think I would argue that linking to the security problem(s) and then writing about their style and how they probably came to be counts as discussion, but to each their own.

What would you characterise the two linked security reports as, if not holes?

Yes, they would have been able to if the proposal had gone ahead.