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.
Good thing I don’t use debian.
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.
None of the proposals would have banned AI usage in upstream projects, but banning AI usage in the context of the Debian project was on the table
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.
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”
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.
No community distro has the capacity to fork thousands of packages and maintain them. That’s what a true no Ai policy would require. I also have to add that the Linux kernel itself would need to be forked and then maintained. Just the latter point alone is enough to make all this moot.
Completely missing the point.
That’s true. Nonetheless the maintainers seem to see AI as a valid way to reduce their workload.
As someone who has done package management for a distro at one point in my life… after the initial push, it is so incredibly boring.
I think AI should do all of it. I’m entirely certain that things would be better, not worse, if we did. 99% of problems related to that stuff is because it’s so fucking boring that humans just simply cannot pay the kind of attention it requires to be safe.
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.
Oh no, the people creating free shit for you to use that’s not monetized in any way, want to reduce their workloads. Scum!
You mean the work that that nobody is forcing them to do? The one they do by their own choice while not asking consent and respecting the wishes of others? Yep those devs sound pretty fucking scummy to me.
as a dev I second this opinion.
I was surprised by how many were Trump supporters.
then I was surprised at how many were anti-vax.
now I’m not even surprised.
i’m actually a little surprised, given their history about being so hardcore about dfsg compliance.
boooo
This is like saying “Responsible use of highly infectious diseases.”
Like… In research for vaccines?
Great example. It’s good for that, it must be good universally, so let’s use it for everything. Let’s force people to use it for everything, because it has one legitimate and specific use case scenario.
Yeah, let’s use infectious diseases for socialising with people.
Cough on the face of the person you want to say hello to… Wait… People already do that.
Ohh you mean like the prize winning Folding project that google just shut down so that they could reassign all the staff to work on Gemini instead?
The project that reached its goals and is the basis for new projects? Yeah
Lmfao
This bro doesn’t understand AI, protein folding, or code at all but speaks as an authority on it all.
Their model for folding proteins worked, is complete and access is given freely to researchers for use. I’m not sure what you think they should be working on now, are the people who made it supposed to just never move on to new projects?
Notice how they’ve provided access to 200 million protein predictions in the human proteome and various plants?
Does that sound like it has completed prediction for proteomes of all life on earth?
Does it ever say it is complete even if only for humans?
Does it ever say the workers on the project had verified the validity of even a fraction of the predictions or discovered application of the findings?
It wasn’t “finished”, it was shut down and the employees reassigned to work on a project that produvesw nothing but worthless slop images and texts, buggy code, and occasionally deletes a database.
Dammit. Need to find a new OS.
If you want to avoid ai assisted code your only chance is to build a new OS with a new kernel yourself.
True. I’m really not happy with the avalanche of dogshit produced by “AI” though. Maybe I need to find a new hobby.
I love Debian. An ol’ rock ballad from the 90s
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?
You can’t verify that with humans either. Someone who has seen licensed code, whether proprietary or GPL, will accidentally reproduce snippets of it to accomplish similar tasks in the future.
Code should’ve never been copyrightable from the start. It’s basically the compute equivalent of a recipe. That aside, almost all modern transformer models are trained on generated data by this point, how would we even apply traditional copyright to that? Whole thing needs tossed and retooled. Entire economic system with it tbh, just slows innovation, and despite what you might believe it doesn’t protect the little guy, it just allows massive corporate conglomerates to buy up everything and control for what will be pretty much the extent of your lifetime.
Code is rather expressive, it’s copyright-able for good reason, you can often tell who wrote what via the style and the way the code was written, and the methods used.
I disagree entirely. I grew up when the conversation around if code should even be copyrightable was happening, and at the time to an extent it made some sense, but the entire copy left movement was intended to combat the copyright of code in the name of open source because copy righting code is both stupid and baseless. Imagine if for loops were copyrighted? That’s what you’re essentially arguing unless there’s some sort of vague subjective measure you’re using to determine when something is copyrightable. The entire thing is just oppressive and does not help the people involved that actually deserve benefit and protection. I’m not saying to cut lose and allow rampant theft but copyright as currently designed and implemented is objectively broken and untooled to the tasks of today, stifling innovation and protecting corporate interests above creators and actual developers.
Copyleft is a form of copyright, if you’re against copyright that’s MIT/BSD 0 clause. Also languages aren’t typically copyrighted, it’s works created within those languages. Although I do agree copyright is kinda very broken, but creators of code do deserve protections, as code is very expressive. I am also a FOSS dev who loves copyleft, which only functions under copyright.
algorithms and processes are not copyrightable. Code is an expression of algorithms, and thus is copyrightable. If anything, that’s the stance that the entire movements of Free Software and Open Source are going with to function, so this sounds not a good idea even if it is a good ideal.
They’re moving to this as it’s the only defense against oppression, but copy left was intentionally designed to combat copyright because the core founders of open source disagreed with it and the oppression it was causing in the software development community. Imagine if a recipe for Chilli dogs was copyrightable, but not the concept of Chilli dogs. That’s downright silly.
A more fair comparison would be written works being copyright-able, which code is a written work, a large, expressive, written work
I disagree. I would say both are incomplete comparisons because code is special, it has limitations, it relies on underlying hardware support, and it’s implementing, generally, functionality not anything creative. I don’t have to present a good solution though in order to point out something is broken, I leave that for those more intelligent than I, but copyright is objectively a poor answer to code and is not comparable to an expressive artistic written work.
It’s honestly a bit of both. Creativity can be expressed in the intermediate steps in order to provide a subjectively superior approach (durably optimal until someone identifies a better approach), but fundamentally the design goal is “achieve X with minimal risk and waste”. That’s the part where I agree with you: gatekeeping an outcome is dumb. That said, the expressions of those intermediate steps genuinely land in the territory of creativity. That’s how we end up with new algorithms. Creativity is how we arrive at the optimal algorithms.
Even so, gatekeeping those intermediate techniques is bad for the same reasons as gatekeeping the end state. If they can be independently arrived at (like flourishes that personalize a recipe or alter it for particular food pairings), the end result is still stifling innovation and closing access to the tools everyone has access to.
Edit: Ultimately I think this means everyone should have access, unequivocally. The problem is that LLMs are financially gatekept and implemented at environmentally predatory scales, with unregulated supply chain bottlenecks that choke out the more environmentally friendly and consumer accessible tech that was in the pipeline.
Coding is a creative task, there are many many many solutions to any problem, and some problems are a lot more abstract to where even the problem can be different for different people. Like if there’s a problem with the users interacting with part of the software, you could try to make it easier to interact with, have a little tutorial, decorate it, make it look good, you know, a form of art, you could also try to make it more intuitive, also a form of art. It’s not typically what you’d think about, but coding is a rather creative task and everyone has different ways to go about problems, and those different ways are the different styles of programming people have.
Coding isn’t creative though. There’s an optimum solution to every problem, the layer above the code may be some form of art that needs protected but the code itself is just a recipe.
Can you verify that it didn’t reproduce any code that’s proprietary or has more restrictive licenses than your own?
That’s the main issue for FOSS.
The complement/ reverse is true for companies that produce proprietary software (but they won’t care, sure.)
It can if you control the training data, or if the data is public domain.
But I get your point. You can say all the Diamonds you use are conflict free, but out of the thousands you have, how do you know some have not slipped in.
At what point do you say you did a good enough job, and at what point is it too contaminated?
Like many things, it difficult to draw a line, so its up to communities to set a reasonable standard.
how about making an effort in the first place? to at least make an effort to list all repository thats being used as training data.
Thats a good one. Sounds like a good start for some legislation.
for fuck sakes; stop pretending the csam generating machine is useful.
Imagine calling AI “the csam generating machine” but not cameras.
No, you’re right, those Meta glasses are also powerful csam-generating machines.
Just because you could not find a use for it, does not mean millions of other people have not.
Just like any technology. you can use it responsibly or irresponsibly.
There is no way (in this world that we have created) to use AI “responsibly”. No matter what you choose, you are building on the base of wage theft, human suffering, environmental destruction and empowerment of the oligarchies.
AI is not “like any other technology”. That’s techbro acceleracionist slopaganda.
No matter what you choose, you are building on the base of wage theft, human suffering, environmental destruction and empowerment of the oligarchies
so… like… any other technology after all then?.. otherwise I highly suggest you throw away your phone, your store-bought clothes, most of what you own, really.
Oh look it’s the same accelerationist argument as usual, that just because you loathe one technology you must throw away all of them.
Try at least high-school grade of discussion.
No, not really. There are models based on freely given training data. There are models used without wasting large amounts of electricity. There are models that aren’t used to empower the oligarchs.
It sounds like you are mad at our economic and societal structures, but taking your anger out on the tools.
It sounds like you are mad at our economic and societal structures, but taking your anger out on the tools.
I can be mad at both the exploitative structures and at the toolkits that enable, further and synthetize them. They don’t need to be mutually exclusive, and in general it’s not useful that they are.
Would you say the same of electricity? There is no way to use it responsibly because its all based on exploitative resource extraction?
Please, try at least some modicum of intellectual discourse. Electricity is quite a physical phenomenon of nature, like rain, we can not impart moral judgment on them.
All that said, there are ways to use electricity without “exploitative resource extraction”, for example with a potato.
You need to divorce your thinking of AI as a current prominent manifestation of the capitalistic black hole and the technology itself. Before that is was Crypto. Before that it was cloud, before that it was property derivatives. Capitalism will just hijack anything where they can extract value from the quickest.
AI as a technology is very much real and very much physical, it follows the same physical rules that everything else is. Denying that is like saying steam power is not real because you can’t see the force pushing.
AI has been around for 50 years now. Its driven much of engineering progress in the 70s and 80s, our chemical and biological research in the 90s and physics in the 2000s.
The current large language learning models are just a next progression of this technological trend.
Remember absolutism is toxic.
You need to divorce your thinking
I already did, but you refuse to read it. I explicitly said this is about how A (or what people call “AI”, because it certainly has not existed for “around for 50 years now”) exist in this world how we have created it. Via theft, exploitation and destruction, and oriented to the fulfillment of the elites and the oppression of the worker class.
Absolutism is toxic, yes. Moderated realism upon a flagrant observation of reality as conducted, is not.
AI has been around for 50 years now.
I really don’t care.
This is so divorced from the current discussion of what AI is doing now that it’s a waste of time even talking about it.
if people are finding use for a csam generating machine, i hope they get a visit from the fbi
I take it you think the only use for a microwave is to cook babies?
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.
