mildseason comments on Are Anti-AI Linux distributions practical?

Are Anti-AI Linux distributions practical? (lemmy.ca)

submitted 5 days ago by Crumpled6273@lemmy.ca to c/linux@lemmy.ml

136 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.

[–] mildseason@sopuli.xyz 6 points 5 days 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.

permalink

fedilink

source

hideshow 20 child comments

[–] tabular@lemmy.world 7 points 5 days 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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 12 child comments

[–] mildseason@sopuli.xyz 1 point 5 days 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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 11 child comments

[–] dusk@piefed.social 1 point 4 days 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?