- cross-posted to:
- news
- cross-posted to:
- news
You must log in or register to comment.
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
So I’m going quitting Debian. Not only quitting it, but I’m seriously considering starting to actively boycott and sabotage them. I know that I may not achieve any big change on my own, or even if I had collaborators, but at least I will know that I was on the right side of history.
I’d expect this from Ubuntu but I was hoping for better from Debian… You know… Being as their whole shtick is stability.
Get ready for the ISO to double in size
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.
Rip Debian
Deeply disappointing. I was hoping it would be a refuge from AI infection.
It’s worth looking at the full results
If this AI distro crap keeps going, I’m going back to using my Android (Pixel 10a and GrapheneOS) phone for everything. Not the best option but better than using a vibe-coded distro.
All I need is a monitor and wall mount for the monitor. Connect a hub and charger (phone does pass-through charging), a Bluetooth keyboard and mouse.
Some workflow will have to change, Cryptpad instead of LibreOffice for example.
If you think Gemini isn’t deep in android development now, you’re mistaken.
Maybe you’re ok if you stay on 13 or maybe 14.
No Gemini in GrapheneOS.
Graphene isn’t using Gemini, nor including the Gemini app in user space.
But they’re still ingesting AOSP from Google’s source drops and Google is 100% using Gemini to make that.
Same as Debian is going to allow devs to use LLMs to develop for Debian.
People out there who think they can avoid AI this way are really just delusional. Its everywhere at this point.
If its not in the software you are using, the software that runs the software has it. Or the software that runs the software that runs the software. Its inescapable.
You’re on the internet? Millions of lines of AI code are probably involved in you seeing this message across the entire infrastructure needed to allow this.
I will wait to see if it actually comes at the detriment of the program.
This is disappointing… It would have been good to have at least one major distro that was AI free
This is a very hard decision to reverse out of if it turns out to be a problem in a few years
The good news is that it could roll back to the current stable Trixie at any point
They’re gonna use AI for that too
Contributors are expected to understand, review, test, and, where appropriate, modify AI-assisted output before incorporating it into Debian. Blindly accepting or uploading AI-generated material without appropriate human review is inconsistent with Debian’s established development practices. We [encourage] our contributors to disclose whether a contribution was made with AI [assistance], but do not require them to do so.
And how are they (Debian) going to to make sure this happens?
There’s no way to know for sure regardless. Having a policy allows them to take action when they do find it.
When people do code review off a pull request and sees it’s slop, it will go back to the developer to fix it. I guess if a person submit too much slop, they will get banned or something similar.
However, I don’t know the Debian process to have new code submitted, but would guess that it have to be more than one person to go from code to build a package.
That last bit is a bad idea
I agree. Disclosure of A.I. use should be mandatory.
My main concern with A.I. use is its ability to hide incompetence. If a new agent introduces code that was entirely written by illegal-software that violates copyright law–A.I.–then that should be made clear, even if competent-programmers review the new inclusion and approve of it. Otherwise people are left with the impression that this new agent is a competent programmer. A.I. use–undisclosed–creates false reputations.
The disclosure being encouraged and not mandatory is purely to protect the egos of programmers currently utilizing A.I. products.
However I do respect their decision and I maintain projects should be self governing.
I disagree. For one, it’s unenforceable, just like outright banning it.
But AI assistance can also mean a lot of different things, from outright vibecoding through autocomplete up to only asking it to so review. It diminishes the human work in the eyes of other people, because a simple disclaimer doesn’t distinguish between the work done, and also encourages people to point out to AI as a scapegoat for their mistakes.
Good code always was and should always be one where a human is fully responsible for it; if you decide to vibecode and happens to end up with perfect code, good; if you write it fully yourself but it’s crap it doesn’t absolve you that you didn’t use AI…
It’s a tool, so use it responsibly like any other tool and stand behind your code no matter what tools you used.
I disagree. For one, it’s unenforceable, just like outright banning it.
If people thought “its impossible to catch everyone so why bother trying to catch anyone at all” when making laws, no laws would exist
THIS, THIS, THIS
Basically, a nirvana fallacy/perfect solution fallacy.
I disagree. For one, it’s unenforceable, just like outright banning it.
Agreed. I an aware a lot of people contributed to the Linux kernel, without disclosing they used ai.
Good code always was and should always be one where a human is fully responsible for it; if you decide to vibecode and happens to end up with perfect code, good; if you write it fully yourself but it’s crap it doesn’t absolve you that you didn’t use AI…
Yeah. I do not blame the ai for writing the code, but rather the person to accept and push that code even if they know it is crap.
I do respect their decision and I maintain projects should be self governing.
Me too, but I also think that governance isn’t as simple as “we get to decide what we do”, it also interacts with how well the decision-makers understand their domain and their broader it sits in, both of which are potentially reduced as a consequence of relying on AI.
Also there is the possibility of AI tools dominating workflows and then getting ripped away (either as the corporates raise costs, or the bubble bursts and they collapse), leaving a project overwhelmed with a unmanageably large array of weaknesses. In that scenario self-governance starts to become irrelevant.
It’s pretty much the same policy as the Linux kernel, but still disappointing.
I’ve been dumping things left and right as they decide Claude is their buddy, and that won’t stop because the same idiots who dropped decent init systems for that RedHat tech bro’s mess decided not to block it.
Yeah. I think we should seriously start organizing to create a Linux fork free of all that AI slop shit. It’s a huge task, but a really necessary one.
The Linux kernel project forces LLMs on all the devs.
The Linux Foundation, that has the Linux kernel project by the balls, forces LLMs on everyone involved.
That’s not at all true
At least the kernel requires disclosure of AI use. The new Debian “policy” doesn’t even require that.
I am most concerned about that. If the legal position on copyright of AI code is decided in the future an audit or tracking of AI contributions in the codebase may be necessary to understand risk and exposure.
Granted you can’t make people disclose AI assistance with 100% accuracy but I would expect a majority to comply.
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.
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.
When an LLM agent reports a huge security bug and provides the solution and the only solution is explicitly exactly what it wrote.
Checkmate!
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.
I trust their judgement here. I hope this is the right call.
char strawberry = “r”
