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
[–] 8 points 1 month ago (20 children)

AI is a tool. You already trust the developers to build an operating system with the tools available.

From the Debian announcement

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.

It's quite clear they don't allow vibe coding. As you say, the kernal itself allows AI contributions in a similar way.

If you're worried about the ethical aspects of AI then you'll probably have to move to NetBSD. If you're only worried about quality this is a non issue.

  • source
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago (12 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (11 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (9 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (8 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 weeks ago (7 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 weeks ago (6 children)

    Indeed! It's more inportant than ever to switch to open source software, which is why i dont see the point in placing restrictions on developers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 weeks ago (5 children)

    ai will be the death of open source.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 weeks ago (4 children)
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago (3 children)

    Aside from turning a lot of it into crap, it will push people away from open source (I already assume that everything posted under open source on lemmy, reddit etc is now ai trash, and a lot of it is immediately called out), it will also be used as a way for open source to be labelled as unsafe, and unregulated, leading to more and more hurdles, and giving the big corporations more, and more control.

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

    I just don't know if that's true. Yes there are vibe coded projects everywhere but most of them can be ignored. They don't really have a bearing on the popular stable projects. Those projects will continue to be developed and as long as they don't accept vibe commits the quality won't go down.

    I don't know how open source could be labelled unsafe when the code is there for everyone to see. Yes Google is trying to lock down Android but that's not an AI problem, that's a capitalism problem.

    Even then, i can't see how corporations could kill open source. They can never stop people using their free time to develop code and releasing it under GPL.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    ai is very much a capitalism problem, it is owned, and pushed by the worst people, while also allowing lazy morons to do things beyond their understanding. The powers that be know all too well how to manipulate the public, and they own the media.

    Graphene is often referred to as a hacker os for instance

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 4 weeks 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?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (6 children)

    It might be a tool, but it is naïve not take all of its externalities into account.

    From tante's piece:

    Usefulness is not an objective, fully abstract property: A thing is not useful for everyone or in general but mostly just for specific people in specific contexts. And useful never comes for free.

    But let’s take a step back and use a different example: Child labor. Child labor is very “useful” if you want cheap labor. It’s 100% deplorable to use it or accept it.

    Edit: a good source of said externalities: https://codeberg.org/ethical-foss/open-slopware/src/branch/main/why_not_llms.md

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (5 children)

    Is using AI as bad as child labour?

    I don't believe so. But i don't believe in copyright laws either. If a developer chooses to use AI it's their choice.

    Obviously best case scenario is they use a local open weights model. I believe this will be more commonplace in a few years.

    I think a skilled developer using AI to improve open source software is a case of the ends justifying the means.

    Edit: the link you provided highlights the problems with large capitalist corporations owning the compute power and generic AI use by the untrained population more than the issue of skilled developers contributing to open source software.

    While these things are a problem i don't believe a distro should stop contributions just because a developer consulted an LLM.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (4 children)

    Analogies are comparisons of structure, not intensity. There are a lot of things that are "not as bad" as child labour, that doesn't make them OK.

    But i don’t believe in copyright laws either. Do you believe in the goals of the GPL? Because you have to admit, the way AI works, regardless of whether you frame it as "theft" or "copyright infringement" or not, is at odds with those goals.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    GPL is a response to copyright laws. If there were no copyright laws we wouldn't need GPL.

    Prohibiton doesn't work. Regulations need to passed by government bodies not open source developers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    You do realise that even if copyright were abolished, large, powerful corporations would continue to exist and even manage to use the absence of copyright to their advantage?

    Without the GPL being enforced, a company like Microsoft could finally start digging a moat around Linux without constraints.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 weeks ago (1 child)

    "Copyright" was made to empower and protect large corpos like microsoft.

    If you think copyright "protects" linux in any way, you're a fool.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 4 weeks ago

    It doesn't matter what the reason for its creation is, you can make similar arguments about laws against assault and murder or the right to vote, what matters is what it's doing in the current legal situation.

    If you think that the end of copyright will suddenly render corporations powerless, you are beyond naive. Some will fail to adapt, undoubtedly, but many will not just adapt, they'll be able to take full advantage of this new situation. Copyright isn't the only mechanism they can dig a moat with, and as long as the economic incentives remain what they are, they will find a way and be no less exploitative. Meanwhile, the individual creator or indeed projects like Linux will lose what little protections they have and be completely at the mercy of these monsters. Forget exploitative contracts, they can just exploit you without one!

    A better world without copyright is possible, it just doesn't look exactly like this world, except without copyright. The abolishment of copyright is not an ideal, it's a means to an end. But for those means to lead to a good end, how and when it happens matters. To cheer on a development because it nominally achieves what you believe is needed to lead to your ideal outcome, even when the way it happens would lead to an outcome that is in direct opposition of the ideals that lead to that belief in the first place, is a sign you've stopped thinking.

  • source
  • parent