57
Are Anti-AI Linux distributions practical? (lemmy.ca)
submitted 1 day ago by to c/linux@lemmy.ml
120 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I have been using Linux for over 8 months now, and my primary distribution of choice was Debian.

Debian recently conducted a community vote on allowing AI contributions, and it ended up allowing responsible AI contributions.

What is this responsible? How can AI commits be responsible? There are thousands of reasons to not use AI, and the primary reason is AI is a thief.

How did you react to Debian's decision? Did you switch distros? Which one was your option, and why?

Also, when the Linux kernel itself allows AI commits, is there any practicality in a Linux distribution strictly limiting or restricting AI commits?

I have no serious usability issue with Debian now but am concerned about the use of AI even in my Linux distribution. Should I keep going with Debian or consider any other distribution, as I only have 8+ months of experience as a daily Linux user? I tried almost all Linux distros and am comfortable with everything except Void Linux and highly complex ones like Gentoo.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 1 day ago (6 children)

Trust is 3 parts; authenticity, competance and empathy. Trust is broken if any of those are insufficient.

If others believe AI creation and AI use hurts people then leaving that unaddressed makes one appear to lack empathy.

"Quality of code" ultimately boils down to judging how it may effect people (reading it, changing it, using the software it compiles to). To worry about code quality is only to care about people. Only caring sometimes is inconsistent - it questions their character.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago (5 children)

    You make good points however you can't stop a person doing something because it goes against your beliefs.

    In this case the Debian developers had a vote and the majority agreed that using AI was ok.

    I've read the post and they still have a code of conduct, they still have standards that they will keep. That's good enough for me to continue trusting the devs.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 22 hours ago

    Didn't every single option in that 'vote' include using ai though?

    And didn't they all seem like very deliberately long winded options, designed knowing that the majority of users would only read the titles?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (3 children)

    There are 2 tools to stop someone from harming others: words or violence. If people disagree an action is harmful to others then we aught to use our words to discover who's belief better represents reality.

    I think using AI to write software could be okay but the AI in use today isn't. AI makers circumvent our social licenses and redistribute our code covertly through a mathematical blender. Debian OS authors agreed that there are legal unknowns regarding the copyrightability of generated code and didn't say AI was okay or bad one way or the other. Debain should already know today's AI spits at our faces.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago (2 children)

    I'm not disputing that AI has severe issues. I think it's more appropriate for governments to focus on effective regulation than open source developers disallowing useful tools.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 22 hours ago (1 child)

    The majority of governments are at least partially at the mercy of the usa government in this respect though, easily one of the most absurd, and corrupt governments on the planet.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •