- cross-posted to:
- debian@lemmy.ml
- news@lemmy.linuxuserspace.show
- cross-posted to:
- debian@lemmy.ml
- news@lemmy.linuxuserspace.show
You must log in or # to comment.
disclose whether a contribution was made with AI but do not require them to do so
How is that good? “You should, but if you don’t … nothing happens”
responsible use
Completely subjective and therefore absolutely meaningless when setting up rules/guidelines
Good.
Debian allow killing machine to use it, so it’s not a surprise that thirsty machine are allowed too
It’s hard to be upset. I’m not a Debian maintainer, or even someone paid to program. But here a group of people got together and said yes to allowing AI. I feel like on some level you have to accept that answer. I’m curious why they made that decision I guess.
It’s not like it matters, the kernel is being sloppified and that will affect all distros. Shame that this happens right as linux is beginning to get popularity.
Bugs being fixed = sloppification?
It’s just braindead luddites throwing meme words
“Responsible use of AI”? Is that a joke? There is no such a thing as responsible use of AI. Responsible people would refuse to use AI.
But anyway, Linux is already AI. Sticking to any one of those BSDs is the only way out.
NetBSD explicitly don’t allow AI code
You CAN use AI responsibly, it’s just not worth doing, most of the time. It would cost more than just not using it in the first place.
Former Debian Project Leader Lucas Nussbaum expressed regret on the results of the vote, writing: “On a very personal note, I regret that the winning option does not acknowledge all the legitimate concerns around AI: environmental impact, copyright and licensing uncertainty, the health of Free Software communities, and the strain of aggressive scraping on the open web.”
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.
humans will remain accountable
I see this a lot in clanker apologia, but it’s never clear what “accountable” actually entails. Unless it’s something of the order of a first-offense permanent ban from the project then it’s not going to dissuade anyone from being lazy meat proxies.
That’s very Linus of them:
The mass-extinction causing orphan-crushing torment nexus is a tool, just like other tools we use. And it’s clearly a useful one.
There are other questions around it, like if we should be complicit in killing billions of people, and making more than 50% of genera go extinct, via its CO2e releases and water use, but “is it useful” is no longer one of those questions.
The Debian project has been and will continue to be about the technology.
Sure, the people who use it is important and often a very motivating part of the project, but in the end that’s a side benefit, not the point of the project.
In the Debian community we do open source because it results in better technology, not because of ethical reasons.
And so we make decisions primarily based on technical merit. Not fear of causing a mass extinction.
/s
The mass-extinction causing orphan-crushing torment nexus is a tool, just like other tools we use.
Well, obviously! Microsoft is using this tool too, and as we can all observe, that’s making their competing OS much better and much more desirable.
I’d expect this from Ubuntu but I was hoping for better from Debian… You know… Being as their whole shtick is stability.
Agreed, that was a large part of why I chose debian (and never considered ubuntu) as my ‘back up’ distro, just in case my distro of choice (or arch above it) decided to do something daft.
Debian seemed like the logical choice
IMHO: They talk about having it go through the exact same due diligence as normal contribs and a human has to be responsible. I think it’s an acceptable compromise.
A human cannot be responsible for AI written code.
Even if you personally vet every single line, you are still simply code reviewing an AI before you pass it to someone else.
A human did not write nor understand it, and thus cannot be responsible for it and thus should never submit it.
Not to mention the code review itself becomes a very tedious process: sifting through hundreds of lines of AI garbage and token expiry. It’s downright rude to expect a volunteer to check hundreds of lines of garbage you didnt even bother writing.
Signed, disgruntled software engineer who refuses to use my jobs “optional” ai feature
I don’t follow - if one does review and vet every line of code, how could one not understand it?
That’s the whole point of doing a code review.
Get ready for the ISO to double in size
Deeply disappointing. I was hoping it would be a refuge from AI infection.
Rip Debian
