Former Debian Project Leader Lucas Nussbaum expressed regret on the results of the vote, writing: “On a very personal note, I regret that the winning option does not acknowledge all the legitimate concerns around AI: environmental impact, copyright and licensing uncertainty, the health of Free Software communities, and the strain of aggressive scraping on the open web.”
That’s very Linus of them:
The mass-extinction causing orphan-crushing torment nexus is a tool, just like other tools we use. And it’s clearly a useful one.
There are other questions around it, like if we should be complicit in killing billions of people, and making more than 50% of genera go extinct, via its CO2e releases and water use, but “is it useful” is no longer one of those questions.
The Debian project has been and will continue to be about the technology.
Sure, the people who use it is important and often a very motivating part of the project, but in the end that’s a side benefit, not the point of the project.
In the Debian community we do open source because it results in better technology, not because of ethical reasons.
And so we make decisions primarily based on technical merit. Not fear of causing a mass extinction.
/s
The mass-extinction causing orphan-crushing torment nexus is a tool, just like other tools we use.
Well, obviously! Microsoft is using this tool too, and as we can all observe, that’s making their competing OS much better and much more desirable.
At first I was afraid that they would allow for an irresponsible use. But no, they explicitly say “responsible”, so that danger is no more. I’m very much relieved.
Also they explicitly mention that humans will remain accountable. Not Nature, or Fate, or the gods; mark that. Good thinking there!
Problems solved.
humans will remain accountable
I see this a lot in clanker apologia, but it’s never clear what “accountable” actually entails. Unless it’s something of the order of a first-offense permanent ban from the project then it’s not going to dissuade anyone from being lazy meat proxies.
disclose whether a contribution was made with AI but do not require them to do so
How is that good? “You should, but if you don’t … nothing happens”
responsible use
Completely subjective and therefore absolutely meaningless when setting up rules/guidelines
IMHO: They talk about having it go through the exact same due diligence as normal contribs and a human has to be responsible. I think it’s an acceptable compromise.
A human cannot be responsible for AI written code.
Even if you personally vet every single line, you are still simply code reviewing an AI before you pass it to someone else.
A human did not write nor understand it, and thus cannot be responsible for it and thus should never submit it.
Not to mention the code review itself becomes a very tedious process: sifting through hundreds of lines of AI garbage and token expiry. It’s downright rude to expect a volunteer to check hundreds of lines of garbage you didnt even bother writing.
Signed, disgruntled software engineer who refuses to use my jobs “optional” ai feature
I don’t follow - if one does review and vet every line of code, how could one not understand it?
That’s the whole point of doing a code review.
I’d expect this from Ubuntu but I was hoping for better from Debian… You know… Being as their whole shtick is stability.
Agreed, that was a large part of why I chose debian (and never considered ubuntu) as my ‘back up’ distro, just in case my distro of choice (or arch above it) decided to do something daft.
Debian seemed like the logical choice
It’s worth looking at the full results
Deeply disappointing. I was hoping it would be a refuge from AI infection.
“Responsible use of AI”? Is that a joke? There is no such a thing as responsible use of AI. Responsible people would refuse to use AI.
But anyway, Linux is already AI. Sticking to any one of those BSDs is the only way out.
NetBSD explicitly don’t allow AI code
You CAN use AI responsibly, it’s just not worth doing, most of the time. It would cost more than just not using it in the first place.
Alright, what are the alternatives folks?
Gentoo? Gentoo!
(But I’ll keep watch to see of they don’t revert course because “the models are now too powerful”, since it is a policy from 2024)
The policy
Gentoo Council has voted on 2024-04-14 on the following policy:
It is expressly forbidden to contribute to Gentoo any content that has been created with the assistance of Natural Language Processing artificial intelligence tools. This motion can be revisited, should a case be made for such a tool that does not pose copyright, ethical and quality concerns.
This policy affects Gentoo contributions and the official Gentoo projects. It does not prohibit adding packages for AI-related software or software that is being developed with the help of such tools upstream.
chimera-linux https://chimera-linux.org/community/#project-ai-policy
Chimera has a strong no-AI policy for contributions in all of its repositories. Contributors found using LLMs will be barred from further contributing to the project.
We take objection against the use of LLMs primarily on ethical grounds. This is based on many factors, including societal impact of LLM use, ecological impact, and others. We reject arguments about “useful tools” and similar, because technical aspects can never be considered in isolation.
LLM-using contributions additionally have a disproportionate burden on reviewers, their mental health, as well as project resources, which we have limited amounts of.
Chimera is a small project and has limited control over what upstreams do, particularly due to dependencies and widespread use of LLM usage in projects nowadays. We try to do the right thing when possible, preferring appropriate alternatives and so on.
I genuinely wonder how they’re going to square this policy with LLM code in the kernel.
Personally, I’m guessing that all distros will eventually bend and allow LLM code.
I think this bit makes it clear that shipping LLM code from the kernel that wasn’t contributed by Gentoo is fine:
This policy affects Gentoo contributions and the official Gentoo projects. It does not prohibit adding packages for AI-related software or software that is being developed with the help of such tools upstream.
When an LLM agent reports a huge security bug and provides the solution and the only solution is explicitly exactly what it wrote.
Checkmate!
It’s hard to be upset. I’m not a Debian maintainer, or even someone paid to program. But here a group of people got together and said yes to allowing AI. I feel like on some level you have to accept that answer. I’m curious why they made that decision I guess.
Get ready for the ISO to double in size
Good.
Why?
Debian allow killing machine to use it, so it’s not a surprise that thirsty machine are allowed too
as far as I know the gpl doesn’t allow restrictions on use
Rip Debian
