| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 28 |
| Nodes: | 6 (1 / 5) |
| Uptime: | 45:44:00 |
| Calls: | 422 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,024 |
| Messages: | 90,306 |
This appears to leave us with sci-ai/* because:
First, 'AI' seems to be the term that is commonly used (just look at
this mail's subject) and understood.
Secondly, while others may find sci-ai to buzzwordy, that could also
been seen as an advantage.
And finally, maybe there will be non-deep-learning packages which we
then could put under sci-ai/*.
- Flow
IMHO, "ai" is an extremely overloaded and over- and mis-used term.
It's nothing but glorified pattern matching, and calling everything "ai"
is very buzzwordy. I'd much rather see it named "ml".
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025, Andreas K Huettel wrote:
++ for sci-ai
(Now, is it really sci-ai, or should we also come up with dev-ai (for libraries without explicit scientific context) and sys-ai (for accelerator device drivers) in addition? :)
Arsen Arsenović <arsen@gentoo.org> writes:For what it's worth, +1.
Filip Kobierski <fkobi@pm.me> writes:I agree. I can live with sci-ml if the consensus goes the other way, though.
On Monday, March 10th, 2025 at 21:40, Alfredo Tupone <tupone@gentoo.org> wrote:As was mentioned, sci-ml would be confusing with Meta-Language.
To declutter sci-libs and dev-libs from most of the "so called"I really like thi idea.
AI packages I think that a new category should be created.
Maybe sci-ai/ or dev-ai/ or sci-dl/ (deep-learning)
For better or worse the field is growing and it would be nice
to have a separate category for it.
In my opinion the category should begin with "sci":
- "sci-ai" feels the most general but buzzwordy;
- "sci-dl" is too specific as not AI is deep learning;
- "sci-ml" (machie learning) in my opinion would be the
best choice as it describes the packages listed clearly.
The term "AI" has a very long and storied history, and covers the entire
field of machine learning and then some. I think 'sci-ai' is most
fitting as a result (and, besides also being more fitting, it also is
not ambiguous).
To declutter sci-libs and dev-libs from most of the "so called"
AI packages I think that a new category should be created.
Maybe sci-ai/ or dev-ai/ or sci-dl/ (deep-learning)
To declutter sci-libs and dev-libs from most of the "so called"
AI packages I think that a new category should be created.
Maybe sci-ai/ or dev-ai/ or sci-dl/ (deep-learning)
Hi!
Although maybe it should be sci-ml.
Let's _not_ use *-ml since for us ml stands for OCaml (which comes from
ML - "Meta langauge").
sci-ai, dev-ai, and app-ai (say, "app-ai/ollama"?) are nice IMO.
To declutter sci-libs and dev-libs from most of the "so called"
AI packages I think that a new category should be created.
Maybe sci-ai/ or dev-ai/ or sci-dl/ (deep-learning)
The packages that I can move from dev-libs in the new category are:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2025, Maciej Barć wrote:
W dniu 10.03.2025 oĀ 23:42, Eli Schwartz pisze:
I don't understand your argument at all. "ml" is hardly a reserved
concept, and dev-ml exists precisely for "libraries and utilities
relevant to the ML programming language", which isn't going to get
confused with sci-ml/ for the same reason nobody would dream of
searching in sci-cpp/ for "scientific software written in C++", as the
emphasis is on *science* and naturally brings the concept of machine
learning to mind.
If I would see the name "sci-cpp" for the 1st time I would indeed
think of C++ libs for scientific usage. Not sure what other "CPP" you
have meant here. :)
I would say "ml" is kinda indeed reserved.
But maybe we could move ocaml pkgs into "dev-ocaml" and then
introduce "dev-ml". In case of having "dev-ocaml" and "sci-ml"
nobody would get confused.
As I see "dev-ml" all the time I work on ::gentoo, having other "*-ml"
feels very confusing to me.
On 3/10/25 4:53 PM, Maciej Barć wrote:
Hi!
Although maybe it should be sci-ml.
Let's _not_ use *-ml since for us ml stands for OCaml (which comes from
ML - "Meta langauge").
sci-ai, dev-ai, and app-ai (say, "app-ai/ollama"?) are nice IMO.
- please don't top-post
- Let's _not_ use *-ai since AI stands for generative artificial
intelligence which most of these packages are not, even according to
the intended use of the *-ai term in this thread
I don't understand your argument at all. "ml" is hardly a reserved
concept, and dev-ml exists precisely for "libraries and utilities
relevant to the ML programming language", which isn't going to get
confused with sci-ml/ for the same reason nobody would dream of
searching in sci-cpp/ for "scientific software written in C++", as the emphasis is on *science* and naturally brings the concept of machine
learning to mind.
I could argue that "AI" is too confusing of a term to use because it is
the name of the pale-throated sloth (and because there are other abbreviations that are DEEPLY not on topic for this mailing list). But fortunately people possess the ability to recognize context, and will recognize that Gentoo packages are not talking about members of the
animal kingdom. They will also recognize sci-machine-learning when they
see it.
Or, we could bite the bullet and stop clinging "short and witty two-word categories".
Let's call it "sci-machine-learning/".
But obviously, whatever we call it shouldn't feel like deceptive
trickery to the people ***using*** the packages from this proposed new category. So I oppose anything with the name "ai" in it, as it's way too specific, unless it is strictly limited to e.g. ollama, which isn't
actually packaged in ::gentoo and isn't actually on topic as a result.
This appears to leave us with sci-ai/* because:
First, 'AI' seems to be the term that is commonly used (just look at
this mail's subject) and understood.
Secondly, while others may find sci-ai to buzzwordy, that could also
been seen as an advantage.
And finally, maybe there will be non-deep-learning packages which we
then could put under sci-ai/*.
W dniu 10.03.2025 oĀ 23:42, Eli Schwartz pisze:
I don't understand your argument at all. "ml" is hardly a reserved
concept, and dev-ml exists precisely for "libraries and utilities
relevant to the ML programming language", which isn't going to get
confused with sci-ml/ for the same reason nobody would dream of
searching in sci-cpp/ for "scientific software written in C++", as the
emphasis is on *science* and naturally brings the concept of machine
learning to mind.
If I would see the name "sci-cpp" for the 1st time I would indeed think
of C++ libs for scientific usage. Not sure what other "CPP" you have
meant here. :)
I would say "ml" is kinda indeed reserved. But maybe we could move ocaml
pkgs into "dev-ocaml" and then introduce "dev-ml". In case of having "dev-ocaml" and "sci-ml" nobody would get confused.
As I see "dev-ml" all the time I work on ::gentoo, having other "*-ml"
feels very confusing to me.
On Monday, March 10th, 2025 at 21:40, Alfredo Tupone <tupone@gentoo.org> wrote:
To declutter sci-libs and dev-libs from most of the "so called"
AI packages I think that a new category should be created.
Maybe sci-ai/ or dev-ai/ or sci-dl/ (deep-learning)
I really like thi idea.
For better or worse the field is growing and it would be nice
to have a separate category for it.
In my opinion the category should begin with "sci":
- "sci-ai" feels the most general but buzzwordy;
- "sci-dl" is too specific as not AI is deep learning;
- "sci-ml" (machie learning) in my opinion would be the
best choice as it describes the packages listed clearly.
Filip Kobierski <fkobi@pm.me> writes:
On Monday, March 10th, 2025 at 21:40, Alfredo Tupone <tupone@gentoo.org> wrote:
To declutter sci-libs and dev-libs from most of the "so called"
AI packages I think that a new category should be created.
Maybe sci-ai/ or dev-ai/ or sci-dl/ (deep-learning)
I really like thi idea.
For better or worse the field is growing and it would be nice
to have a separate category for it.
In my opinion the category should begin with "sci":
- "sci-ai" feels the most general but buzzwordy;
- "sci-dl" is too specific as not AI is deep learning;
- "sci-ml" (machie learning) in my opinion would be the
best choice as it describes the packages listed clearly.
As was mentioned, sci-ml would be confusing with Meta-Language.
The term "AI" has a very long and storied history, and covers the entire field of machine learning and then some. I think 'sci-ai' is most
fitting as a result (and, besides also being more fitting, it also is
not ambiguous).
On 10/03/2025 21.40, Alfredo Tupone wrote:
To declutter sci-libs and dev-libs from most of the "so called"
AI packages I think that a new category should be created.
Maybe sci-ai/ or dev-ai/ or sci-dl/ (deep-learning)
Thanks for your proposal.
I would go with sci-ai/*, even if all packages under that category would
be about deep/machine learning. And while sci-ml would maybe more
suitable, -ml seems to be established to indicate OCaml / ML, and we
should avoid naming inconsistencies. For the same reason I would rule
out sci-machine-learning.
This appears to leave us with sci-ai/* because:
First, 'AI' seems to be the term that is commonly used (just look at
this mail's subject) and understood.
Secondly, while others may find sci-ai to buzzwordy, that could also
been seen as an advantage.
And finally, maybe there will be non-deep-learning packages which we
then could put under sci-ai/*.