Linux

I wonder what's the reason to make it optional? I think I've seen this approach with other projects as well. Isn't transparency and accountability a good thing? Also, this kind of information helps immensely when reading pull requests or silly bug reports. And Debian acknowledge there might be licensing issues. So it might become some sort of liability to them once it taints everything and we can't even tell?! So why? What's the upside? Adorn oneself with borrowed plumes and not being forced to disclose the fact? Or too much bookkeeping?

There are so many levels of LLM involvement and once you make this distinction you actually have to devote some of your limited resources to define and enforce it. So I think it might not be strictly beneficial, but possibly also have downsides.

Where would you draw the line at which point it counts as LLM involvement? Having one run as some sort of spell/syntax checker? Doing some research (and being influenced by it) before hand coding something? Having it create a working prototype and then reimplementing it by hand? If you use code from somewhere else to solve a problem and ai use has not been disclosed for this code, do you automatically have to assume LLM usage was involved or is there plausible deniability?

I think in the end you'd have to use too many resources check it and debate where the line is drawn, when the real question is how you retain human knowledge and engagement within your community.

The point is also that this is the pre-enshittification version of AI, and any person or system foolish enough to become dependent on it will get exploited to the best of AI companies' abilities.

There were 8 options and Debian has ranked choice voting. This was actually around the middle of the spectrum of options, so with half voting most to least restrictive and the other vice versa, the middle of the road choice won.