Responsible use of llms can't be achieved. Can you verify that all of your training data are square with its creators? If not, how is that responsible?

In a nutshell, it looks like AI disclosures are encouraged, but not required, and AI usage is encouraged to be human reviewed, but not required. They have also stated they will not allow the use of online AI services for security reasons (but how this will be enforced I'm not sure, since they are relying on the judgement of contributors)

The only question I have is why. Genuinely.

Debian exists. It has existed for decades. It works. "Oh but AI makes it faster" so fucking what? We didn't need "faster" for years whilst it worked fine, it's not a product on a deadline.

At first I was afraid that they would allow for an irresponsible use. But no, they explicitly say "responsible", so that danger is no more. I'm very much relieved.

Also they explicitly mention that humans will remain accountable. Not Nature, or Fate, or the gods; mark that. Good thinking there!

Problems solved.

This is good news; Debian is still the way to go for me:

Debian acknowledges that the legal status of material produced by generative AI systems remains the subject of ongoing discussion in many jurisdictions, including questions relating to copyright, authorship, licensing, and potential reproduction of training material. The Project does not seek to resolve these unsettled legal questions through this General Resolution, nor does it adopt a position on whether AI-generated output is, in whole or in part, copyrightable or derived from copyrighted works.

They basically pass the buck to the individual developer without taking any responsibility themselves.

Debian acknowledges that the legal status of material produced by generative AI systems remains the subject of ongoing discussion in many jurisdictions, including questions relating to copyright, authorship, licensing, and potential reproduction of training material.

The responsibility for every contribution rests with the contributor who submits it, who remains accountable for its technical quality, legal acceptability, and suitability for inclusion in Debian.

"It may be illegal or against FOSS, but that's up to you to decide, good luck I guess"

Yikes, rest in peace Deb users. I just hope it never happens to my distro.

i'm actually a little surprised, given their history about being so hardcore about dfsg compliance.

This email from 2016 by jwz springs to mind.

I guess you want Debian to be the kind of operation that uses the work of others while blatantly and explicitly ignoring the wishes of the person who did the actual creative work.

I am increasingly of the opinion that all software developers and adjacent people are fucking scum unless proven otherwise.

As long as they don't allow AI bots to submit changes, this is probably a realistic decision. Assuming that code generated by AI is never going to be copyrighted by the AI companies. In light of this uncertainty I don't understand why they don't require AI code to be flagged as such. That bit seems like a really bad idea, legally speaking.

boooo

There is no such thing as "responsible use of GenAI". That said, I understand the decision in the face of even Linus Torvalds allowing AI-generated code into the kernel. If Debian would have banned AI code entirely they would have had to fork every single thing they include in their distro, wipe the AI code from it, and then work to develop it further themselves. It would be too gargantuan a task.

Dammit. Need to find a new OS.

I love Debian. An ol' rock ballad from the 90s