you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 10 points 3 days ago* (1 child)

I think today's they day the Debian devs vote! I hope the full ban will pass.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    How would this ban even work? Didn't Torvalds say AI code in the kernel is fine in principle given it's reviewed properly etc.?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    They could've accepted upstream code using AI. This was the proposal:

    Choice 1: No LLM contributions to Debian via Social Contract Preamble

    This proposal aims to expressly forbid any contributions to Debian written with the use or assistance of large language models (LLMs) or other generative AI tools.

    The scope of this GR is (non-exhaustive):

    Debian source packages
    Official Debian project software, such as lintian
    Debian web resources
    Documentation and translations added by Debian contributors
    Official communication from Debian
    

    It does not include:

    Upstream projects using LLMs for development
    AI-related software
    Upstream patches/security fixes etc
    

    However, the result's arrived. The accepted proposal is the fifth :

    Choice 5: Responsible Use of Generative AI

    Using its power under Constitution section 4.1 (5), the project issues the following statement describing its current position on AI-assisted contributions. This statement describes the position of the project at the time it is adopted. That position may evolve as time passes without the need to resort to future general resolutions. The GR process remains available if the project needs a decision and cannot come to a consensus.

    Debian neither endorses nor prohibits the use of generative AI tools in the development, maintenance, or documentation of software, packaging, documentation, and other media published within the Debian Project. We recognize that such tools can substantially improve the productivity of contributors when used responsibly, allowing volunteers to spend more of their limited time on work that requires technical expertise, judgment, review, and collaboration.

    The Debian Project nevertheless expects that all contributions submitted to Debian, regardless of how and with which tools they were produced, satisfy the same standards of quality, correctness, maintainability, and legal compliance. The use of a generative AI tool does not diminish the contributor's responsibility for the work they submit. 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 enourage our contributors to disclose whether a contribution was made with AI assitance, but do not require them to do so.

    Debian acknowledges that the legal status of material produced by generative AI systems remains the subject of ongoing discussion in many jurisdictions, including questions relating to copyright, authorship, licensing, and potential reproduction of training material. The Project does not seek to resolve these unsettled legal questions through this General Resolution, nor does it adopt a position on whether AI-generated output is, in whole or in part, copyrightable or derived from copyrighted works.

    Instead, Debian continues to rely on the judgment and responsibility of its individual contributors. Project members are expected to exercise appropriate care when using generative AI tools, to consider the provenance and licensing implications of material they contribute, and to avoid introducing content whose legal status they cannot reasonably justify. Existing Debian policies governing licensing, copyright, software freedom, and the acceptance of contributions continue to apply irrespective of the tools used to produce those contributions.

    Contributors are expected to exercise appropriate care when designing and implementing workflows that incorporate generative AI tools. In particular, they should ensure that confidential information, private communications, security-sensitive information (such as embargoed information about security bugs that is not yet public), cryptographic keys, credentials, and other non-public material relating to the Debian Project, its infrastructure, or its community are not disclosed to third-party AI services unless such disclosure has been explicitly authorized and is consistent with Debian's security and privacy requirements.

    The use of generative AI does not alter Debian's established expectations regarding large-scale or automated project actions. Contributors intending to perform actions with broad project impact, such as mass bug filing or patch submission, large-scale code modifications, or other automated changes or requests affecting many packages or contributors, should seek prior discussion and consensus through the appropriate project channels before proceeding. Any such automated process should be overseen by a human who remains accountable for its behavior and output.

    This resolution therefore affirms that generative AI is neither exempt from nor subject to special rules beyond the standards already expected of Debian contributors. The responsibility for every contribution rests with the contributor who submits it, who remains accountable for its technical quality, legal acceptability, and suitability for inclusion in Debian.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    I guess that sounds reasonable. I just don't see how a strict no AI policy can be reasonably enforced, if somebody is hell bent on shoving AI slop into your codebase they're gonna find a way, it's not like it's particularly hard to make it look like you actually wrote the code instead of the AI.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    the "cannot be enforced" argument always felt like concern tolling to me. for things like licences, anyone can just copy code from other incompatible projects and claim it's theirs. every policy can be abused and i don't see why this is different.

    if someone is hell bent on adding ai code (or any other code, like incompatible licenced code or even backdoors) they will have to make signifficant effort to mask the signals to bypass the review. for everything else it will be a good guideline on how to act when that situation happens instead of depending on the individual maintainers opinion

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 days ago*

    they will have to make signifficant effort to mask the signals to bypass the review.

    I guess it depends how significant the effort will be, obviously if somebody just shits out out a 50k line diff with an AI it's gonna be really suspicious right off the bat but a smaller, more contained diff isn't going to immediately raise any flags. Eventually somebody is going to make it really easy to make the AI not sound like an AI at least not as obviously as it does now.

    I think eventually maintainers of high profile open source projects are just gonna have to whitelist contributors and just reject contributions from the general public, I wouldn't be surprised if we started seeing interview processes being set up for open source contributions.

  • source
  • parent