I’m not mad at the decision in the least, I’d just be curious to see what “responsible use” translates to, and how it’s enforced.

"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. "

Basically, however it was written, you’re still responsible for it.

And that’s the only thing that is actually relevant. Using AI tools does not absolve of any responsibility, regardless of area. Speaking of which, why isn’t Huggingface suing OpenAI into oblivion? I’ve slowly come to the conclusion that this “hack” was a PR-stunt to allow OpenAI to pause training without having to admit that they had to stop anyways because they run out of cash.

Well HuggingFace won’t sue them now because they’re owned by Nvidia

Every story you read about how their AI is “so powerful it’s scary” or where they characterize the AI as “going rogue” or some other dumb shit like that is manufactured in an attempt to impress investors

See all the copycat “oh our AI went rogue too” announcements after OpenAI did it.

So basically like how the Linux kernel project does it. That’s fair.

Wait, what’s with the rational thinking! We’re supposed to hate Debian now because any approach that isn’t zero-tolerance to AI is evil. Security will escort you out now.

Aw man I had my pitchfork and everything

Fuck….I was all set to dropship bulk pitchforks and torches ….wtffffffffff

I can ship fuel for torches

No, not Debian!

You can’t stop AI.

Maybe we can’t but climate change could.

Not with that attitude.

Yeah, I was pretty militant about it before, but the horse is out of the barn and no amount of head-in-sand will make it go away.

That’s how I see it too. Look, it’s here, at the very minimum it’s going to be around for a while, and while you don’t have to personally use it, every company hiring is going to expect you to use it. It’s on you to decide how much and to what extent.

Burying heads in the sand and pounding fists isn’t going to close Pandoras box. All it will do is make you personally less employable.

So find a way to use it in a way that works for you, and importantly learn what it’s not good at, because boy howdy are there things it isn’t good at. Then you can advocate for or against it with the knowledge, and hopefully keep your job too.

This account posts like 20 political articles and videos a day.

Talk about a loss for all those who voted for irresponsible use of AI /s

I really had hope on proposal A to be taken… i have faith in debian devs judgement and proposal B feels closer to “keep the door open” than to embrace it.

A sad day anyway.

Whole lot of cope going on in these comments.

Pushing as much of the costs of generated AI onto the contributor is 100% the right way to do this. There has been a substantial shift towards generated code. Which might be temporary depending on your belief system but we are in the world we are in right now.

Contributors using LLMs should have a burden of proof higher than that of traditional contributors. This includes tests, recordings, proofs, discussion, etc.

AI is an effective tool if used correctly. It doesn’t replace thinking, so handle it with care.

Nobody sane would keep bashing a table with a hammer expecting different results than the table breaking under pressure at some point.

This is what Linux doesn’t need.

Even the winning proposal text was AI Generated. Sloppers everywhere