Elektrine lite

← Feed

@zerodogg@hachyderm.io

Post #548257

2026-03-05 18:13 UTC

The proposed handling of LLM in Debian in the latest "Bits from the DPL" is a bit concerning. It misses the mark by acknowledging issues with LLM usage, and then dismisses them all by saying that "As a society, we rarely respond with categorical refusal. Instead, we regulate, reflect, and take responsibility for how we use them." and suggesting absolutely no regulation or reflection (and no particular responsibility other than that which comes with any contribution). I'm not a Debian developer, just a longtime user (and upstream for an unimportant package). But if Debian isn't the principled, ethical one, then I'm guessing no one will be. https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2026/03/msg00001.html

Replies (12)

  • @thomasjwebb@mastodon.social 2026-03-05 19:04

    @zerodogg I hate that the conclusion people jump to from "I'm not sure" is "I'll just go ahead and do the thing that may or may not be bad until I'm sure" instead of erring on the side of not doing the thing.

    Open ##1602356

  • @aburka@hachyderm.io 2026-03-05 19:13

    @zerodogg this is the theme I keep seeing. Acknowledge issues, and then say "so we have to watch out for that" ignoring that no processes exist or could practically exist for the watching of the out.

    Open ##1602360

  • @mawhrin@circumstances.run 2026-03-05 19:30

    @zerodogg that is fucking concerning.

    Open ##1602362

  • @zerodogg I wish Debian would follow Gentoo’s lead. Gentoo has a very strict policy against any AI-generated code because they recognize it as a threat to technical integrity and the actual authorship of the project. The DPL calls it "pragmatic," but pragmatism is the death of understanding. It seeks the result without mastery. If we automate logic, we lose the very expertise required to keep our systems truly free and sovereign.

    Open ##1602363

  • @benjamineskola@hachyderm.io 2026-03-05 19:34

    @zerodogg I dislike that this post uncritically reproduces Nussbaum’s false equivalence. He wants to make this about using any ‘tools’ at all, as if any GenAI critics have also blanket-opposed automated testing, continuous integration, compilers, and syntax highlighting (a genuine example he gave in his thread).

    Open ##1602365

  • @ehashman@cloudisland.nz 2026-03-05 19:44

    @zerodogg this line feels a bit cherry-picked at the expense of the larger point. The more relevant line, I think, is "Simply refusing to engage with widely used tools does not make them disappear; it only reduces our ability to shape how they are used within our project." And I think this is a good summary of the issue. Debian may well end up voting for total abstinence from AI tools within the project, but that isn't e.g. going to stop upstream package sources from using them. If the Linux kernel is already incorporating AI-assisted code, what is the meaningful alternative? For a project that is basically just a middleman for distributing software, I don't think it's possible to avoid software "tainted" with AI in a meaningful way. That would effectively require large-scale human-only rewrites, for which Debian does not have the resources.

    Open ##1602372

  • @gourd@indiepocalypse.social 2026-03-05 20:21

    @zerodogg surprisingly Gentoo of all distributions took a hard line against AI This may wildly end to me running Gentoo at this rate.

    Open ##1602386

  • @zerodogg Slackware is llm free afaik (this is NOT a serious suggestion to be clear)

    Open ##1602394

  • @nik@toot.teckids.org 2026-03-05 22:36

    @zerodogg #NotMyDPL

    Open ##1602400

  • @zerodogg Note that I haven't seen a project-wide decision on this (yet). That's just the current DPL's opinion.

    Open ##1602401

  • @kkarhan@infosec.space 2026-03-06 19:20

    @zerodogg ouch! My disappointment is immeadureabke, #debian!

    Open ##1602404

  • @zerodogg Use of the "royal we" is always something to watch for.

    Open ##1602405