New policy boils down to "AI or not, it's still your code and you're responsible for it". I can get on board with that.
What a fucked up reality when you need to point out that code contributor is responsible for their code.
Debian votes to allow "responsible use of generative AI"
241–250 of 484 posts
Re: Debian votes to allow "responsible use of generative AI"
#242Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can just ask Claude why it did something in the code and it will tell you Programmers just moved up a level , not dumber, we are now managers of a team of 'agent' programmers. The deliverable is now a functionality instead of a specific block of code
> You can just ask Claude why it did something But will Claude give you an authentic rationale and a traceable, verifiable "line of reasoning" for those things? Or will it just construct the next plausible Markov chain built on whatever Reddit thread it ingested at random? You can ask Claude or any LLM for citations, and it will RAG them out ex post facto . Those actually aren't citations, they're just web searches f…
You certainly can ask it to produce a verifiable report that tells you how to verify its claims. Yes, you do need to verify the results and confirm you agree with it. I do this sort of thing a lot to discover misunderstandings Claude has about things and iterating on them. There's a difference between reading everything yourself vs having a discussion where one of you (Claude) will happily dig through everything and create detailed memos for review. If you want line numbers as evidence, just ask then verify, etc.
Re: Debian votes to allow "responsible use of generative AI"
#243New policy boils down to "AI or not, it's still your code and you're responsible for it". I can get on board with that.
My employer has this policy. We also have a strong code review process. But it all crumbles in the face of developers burning out as management thinks we can move way faster and being overloaded with code that had little thought put into it.
Opposite policy at one of my clients (kind of). I am responsible for the code that upper management's Claude produces. Some Mondays, I will start work with a half dozen emails with attachments of Claude generated code for something I don't even know what the point is, with the task of "integrate this and make sure it works." without any context to go along with it, so I have to read the code, usually hundreds of lines and understand WHY manager wanted it, before I can start to code it myself, because it is 1) in the wrong language, 2) doesn't understand our codebase, 3) is using libraries we can't license, etc.
My job has been less watching Claude Code, and more watching Managers Claude Code.
I don't know which I hate more as a programmer.
Re: Debian votes to allow "responsible use of generative AI"
#244Batery is sevel 100
Re: Debian votes to allow "responsible use of generative AI"
#245Earlier quoted context omitted.
A good thing about the "you're the author regardless of the tool you used to produce the code" policy is that if a developer repeatedly submits poor quality AI generated code, one does not blame the model or the agent, one bans/terminates the developer.
What stops them from submitting PRs from another account?
Debian is notoriously very strict on accepting maintainers and they are not anonymous.
Re: Debian votes to allow "responsible use of generative AI"
#246Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the way it should've always been. I don't care what tool you use, but you'd better be ready to stand by and explain the results if necessary.
Are there examples of anyone discussing this and reaching other conclusions? We've come to the same conclusion in our organization and while it felt like it needed to be discussed and stated, I've never heard of anyone coming to a different conclusion. [EDIT: I was referring specifically to the idea that you have to stand by the code that you write. Is anyone deciding on a policy that says "the AI did it" is a valid…
> I was referring specifically to the idea that you have to stand by the code that you write.
Any serious entity which has experts handling code will do so, yes.
My employer, for example, has various teams of actual developers and others with a significant number of “not really” devs who found their way into DevOps roles. The teams with seasoned developers hold the author responsible as to the integrity and quality of code, regardless of tools used. They won’t hesitate to call someone out directly for low-quality submissions in Teams channels. The teams that have a lot of “not really” devs will blame the model for issues that surface. Of course, they’re also pushing to not have to write any code directly by FY2028, but instead have models do it as part of an internal AI initiative. Somehow the idea of using AI to generate reports, process reports, write code, test and deploy got signed off.
Re: Debian votes to allow "responsible use of generative AI"
#247Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can just ask Claude why it did something in the code and it will tell you Programmers just moved up a level , not dumber, we are now managers of a team of 'agent' programmers. The deliverable is now a functionality instead of a specific block of code
> You can just ask Claude why it did something But will Claude give you an authentic rationale and a traceable, verifiable "line of reasoning" for those things? Or will it just construct the next plausible Markov chain built on whatever Reddit thread it ingested at random? You can ask Claude or any LLM for citations, and it will RAG them out ex post facto . Those actually aren't citations, they're just web searches f…
Now replace "Claude" by "human" and see how your comment goes.
Specifically, humans are known to decide subconsciously, then invent some "reasoning" out of thin air to justify it.
This matches my experience with decision-making in software projects.
Re: Debian votes to allow "responsible use of generative AI"
#248Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have had the same experience and feel pressured to adopt it. I had one former colleague say “you really have to stop looking at code” almost incredulous that I was uncertain about whether we should let models write really bad code and architecture that never would have been allowed in the before times. I will say when I let the agents go autonomous I often find I spend more time refactoring than if I had moved slow…
I use agents to build exactly what I want like I am pair programming with a jr engineer, and review every line of final output before I make a PR. I would have zero tolerance if anyone that did anything less in my orgs. Owning and understanding the code you submit is the one job that matters most now.
I feel that in a few years, or even less time, we'll see a whole bunch of companies implode, whist others remain fine.
Re: Debian votes to allow "responsible use of generative AI"
#249Earlier quoted context omitted.
Linus Torvalds regarding the Linux kernel is reasonably similar. He views AI/LLMs as just another tool in the development process. Think about life before and after modern IDEs that features IntelliSense circa 2000. It was night and day. It did not make programmers dumber -- it was a new tool.
Except LLMs actually are making programmers dumber. I personally know people, people whom I know for a fact were good programmers before, who have now completely stopped using their brains. When you ask them why they did something in the code, they say "I don't know, Claude did that and I didn't really question it". There was no such analogous phenomenon with IDEs.
I think LLMs make programmers lazy more than anything. And when programmers stop programming for extended periods, they lose their programming skills. No surprise here. Use it or lose it.
I think a possible solution on both fronts (maintaining software quality, preventing skill atrophy) may be implementation of strict token budgets. Make the individual programmer choose how they are going to spend their limited tokens for the day/week. Provide just enough to use it as a plan/development/review tool, but nowhere near enough to just go full send AI vibe coding software factory slop mode all day long.
Re: Debian votes to allow "responsible use of generative AI"
#250New policy boils down to "AI or not, it's still your code and you're responsible for it". I can get on board with that.
A good thing about the "you're the author regardless of the tool you used to produce the code" policy is that if a developer repeatedly submits poor quality AI generated code, one does not blame the model or the agent, one bans/terminates the developer.
yeah, that's fair. Problem so far has been when poor developers send massive volume of slop for review. Takes time and effort to review or at least glance and test it, especially if developer hasn't bothered.