Debian has begun voting on the future of AI/LLM contributions

penchant

The choices are oddly and not consistently worded. "Ban LLM contributions from Debian via Social Contract", "A cautious approach to generative AI", "Debian is created by humans" and "Avoid the use of LLM: climate destruction is a deal breaker" all in one list? Sounds like several people wrote them and did not agree on the form.

abc123abc123

Jesus Christ on a pogo stick! How difficult should it be? If someone sends you code that is well documented and easy to understand, you accept. I someone sends you code that is bad or incomprehensible, you reject it. Who the f*ck cares who made it? A monkey could have made it for all I care. If it does what it claims to do, and I understand how, it's all good. No, the copyright issue is nonsense. That is handled by contract where the contributor is responsible, alternatively, by code submissions of smaller size where copyright loses its meaning, or just base your project in a jurisdiction where it is a non issue. For 99.99% of the open source projects potential copyright violations is a complete non-issue.

aeuropean12

How conservative.

datakan

Tried to decipher this but seems a bit convoluted. If the Kernel now allows LLM code, then what will Debian do if they ban LLM code? Choice 7 and choice 8 seem pretty clear that the project simply can't continue under those circumstances.

rho4

> After the voting period there will be a record of all the votes without the name of the voter. It will instead contain a cryptographic hash. You will receive a secret after you have voted that can be used to calculate that hash. This allows you to verify that your vote is in the list. This secret is sent in an encrypted mail. I've always wanted this for mail-in voting. E.g. print a random secret on the voting form I receive per mail. Afterwards publish the complete vote-count on the web, with the choice and a hash of the secret. So I can check that my vote was recorded, and only once, and correctly. I understand there might be a lot of reasons for why it could fail in practice, but it would be a start.

lowsong

Proposal A would of course be the best option, but requires a two thirds majority for... some reason. Proposals B, C, D, E are all defeatist policies that appeal to a "here to stay" narrative. Proposal G is potentially workable but has so many carve-outs to be practically useless, leaving only Proposal H as a workable policy if A fails to pass.

z3ratul163071

omg the choices. amazing i drive most vms on os maintained by pontificious nutjobs.