Debian doesn’t seem like an organization that would allow AI contributions. I hope I’m right.
same. I came to Debian looking for stability. would be a shame for them to shit on that trust.
Geiger’s proposal cites four main concerns: copyright, technical quality, impact on Debian’s volunteer community, and broader ethical issues related to generative AI.
I do not envy their position. Either way they are going to get irate comments.
I lean more towards Nussbaum’s position. Allow it only when the submitting person can explain the changes. That would at least put completely vibe-coded submissions out of Debian.
That being said, I would ban fully automated submissions from bots and agents. A human still needs to have a part in it, in my opinion.
Yeah, I agree. In practice it’s difficult to tell whether or not someone used AI to help them code something (especially if they didn’t just tell the LLM to do everything lmao), so it makes more sense to check whether they actually understand the code they’re trying to commit. That’ll keep out the slop while still letting people use coding LLM agents as a static analysis tool for finding bugs or something.
I think I’d be okey with semi automated submissions if they are managed by the maintainer themselves. There were a couple of security incident of long existing vulnerabilities recently. I think its fine if maintainers have a bot running making security audits to find and fix them before somebody else can use them. Of course if some human going over potential PRs.
the most basic rule of thumb that should ALWAYS be held to is that a human has to take responsibility for the actions of a tool, computers cannot be held accountable.
“Written” by AI agents, no less.
It’s a no-brainer guys. Ban that shit.
Eh, if the kernel (Linus himself) hasn’t banned it, maybe it isn’t a no brainer.
Nope, its still a no-brainer. Linus is just being a moron.
Linus clearly meant that the tech is useful, and based on his history he probably meant for debugging more than anything else. And he’s absolutely right, there have been lots of vulnerabilities found by the thing. He didn’t say generated code is great, or that no human review is needed, or how we can adapt to incorporate gen ai in our workflows, etc. He only said it’s a useful tool, and that he doesn’t care about the ethics behind it (which is dumb, but we shouldn’t be surprised, especially if people are trying to push him into a direction, he’ll lash out and pick whatever is pragmatic in his view).
The ethics are a major concern and if you dismiss that, you are a moron. AI wasnt born out of good will, it was born out of a desire for profit. Until it’s energy efficient and the models are built ethically, it’s a no-brainer to deny its use. Once them concerns are addressed then we can start the conversation about the pros and cons of dealing with slop.
I’m completely with you there
What does this mean when the kernel allows AI contributions?
Debian is its own project with their own maintainers and policy.
This would not conflict with linux kernel policy, nor with other upstream use of AI. The article makes it clear:
Importantly, the ban would not apply to upstream projects that use AI, software related to artificial intelligence, or patches and security fixes from upstream sources. In other words, Debian could still package third-party software developed with AI assistance, but Debian contributors would be prohibited from using such tools for direct project work
I would assume they would concider the kernel an upstream project and therefore exempt from the policy.