LLM-generated code is incompatible with libre software. It's extremely frustrating to see such a lack of conviction to argue this point forcefully and repeatedly. It's certainly bad enough to see such a widespread embrace of this dangerous and anti-libre technology within proprietary software teams, but when it comes to FLOSS, it should be a no-brainer to formalize an emphatic anti-slop contributor policy.
Debian decides not to decide on AI-generated contributions
151–160 of 308 posts
Re: Debian decides not to decide on AI-generated contributions
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reputation isn't very relevant here. Yes, for established well known FOSS developers, their reputation will tank if they put out sloppy PRs and people will just ignore them. But the projects aren't drowning under PRs from reputable people. They're drowning in drive-by PRs from people with no reputation to speak of. Even if you outright ban their account, they'll just spin up a new one and try again. Blocking AI submi…
> because the alternative is to ban submissions from people without reputation, and that'd be very harmful to open source. Hmmm, no? That's actually very common in open source. Maybe "banning" isn't the right word, but lots of projects don't accept random drive-by submissions and never have. Debian is a perfect example, you are very unlikely to get a nontrivial patch or package into Debian unless you have some kind o…
You can literally just attach a patch to a bugreport on debian…
Re: Debian decides not to decide on AI-generated contributions
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
Crystal ball, maybe, but 3 years ago, the AI generated classes with empty methods containing "// implement logic here" and now, AI is generating whole stack applications that run from the first try. Past performance does not guarantee future results, of course. But acting like AI is now magically going to stagnate is also a really bold bet.
> now, AI is generating whole stack applications that run from the first try I sincerely doubt that, because it still can't even generate a few hundred line script that runs on the first try. I would know, I just tried yesterday. The first attempt was using hallucinated APIs and while I did get it to work eventually, I don't think it can one shot a complex application if it can't one shot a simple script. IMO, AI has…
>isn't significantly better than it was 3 years ago.
Eh?
Ever hear the saying the first 90% of a problem is 90% of the work, the last 10% of the program is also 90% of the work.
AI/LLMs have improved massively in that context. That's not even including the other model types such as visual/motion-visual/audio which are to the point that telling their output from reality is a chore.
And one shotting a simple script simply doesn't mean much without context. I have it dump relatively complex powershell scripts often enough and it's helped me a lot with being able to explain scripting actions to other humans where before I'd make assumptions about the other users knowledge where it was not warranted.
Re: Debian decides not to decide on AI-generated contributions
#154Soon we can call it debslop!
Re: Debian decides not to decide on AI-generated contributions
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
You say "on a long enough timeline", but you already can't tell today in the hands of someone who knows what they're doing. I think a lot of anti-LLM opinions just come from interacting with the lowest effort LLM slop and someone not realizing that it's really a problem with a low value person behind it. It's why "no AI allowed" is pointless; high value contributors won't follow it because they know how to use it pro…
> It's why "no AI allowed" is pointless … If you tell me AI isn't allowed because it writes bad code I disagree that the rule is pointless, and your last point is a strawman. AI is disallowed because it’s the manner in which the would-be contributors are attempting to contribute to these projects. It’s a proxy rule. Unfortunately for AI maximalists, code is more than just letters on the screen. There needs to be huma…
>where you’re not entitled to loot (contribution) until you’ve proven that you give a shit.
So what metric are you going to try to use to prove yourself?
Re: Debian decides not to decide on AI-generated contributions
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
You say "on a long enough timeline", but you already can't tell today in the hands of someone who knows what they're doing. I think a lot of anti-LLM opinions just come from interacting with the lowest effort LLM slop and someone not realizing that it's really a problem with a low value person behind it. It's why "no AI allowed" is pointless; high value contributors won't follow it because they know how to use it pro…
> high value contributors won't follow it High-value contributors follow the rules and social mores of the community they are contributing to. If they intentionally deceive others, they are not high-value.
Ah, the no true Scotsman theory.
Re: Debian decides not to decide on AI-generated contributions
#157My two cents: I've been coding practically my entire life, but a few years back I sustained a pretty significant and lasting injury to my wrists. As such, I have very little tolerance for typing. It's been quite a problem and made full time work impossible. With the advent of LLMs, AI-autocomplete, and agent-based development workflows, my ability to deliver reliable, high-quality code is restored and (arguably) bett…
> I'd MUCH rather see a holistic embrace and integration of these tools into our ecosystems.
I understand that your use case is different, so AI may help handicapped people. Nothing wrong with that.
The problem is that the term AI encompasses many things, and a lot of AI led to quality decay. There is a reason why Microsoft is now called Microslop. Personally I'd much prefer for AI to go away. It won't go away, of course, but I still would like to see it gone, even if I agree that the use case you described is objectively useful and better for you (and others who are handicapped).
> I also think it incorrect to look at it from a perspective of "does the good outweigh the bad?". Relevant, yes, but utilitarian arguments often lead to counter-intuitive results and end up amplifying the problems they seek to solve.
That is the same for every technology though. You always have a trade-off. So I don't think the question is incorrect at all - it applies the same just as it is for any other technology, too. I also disagree that utilitarian arguments by their intrinsic nature lead to counter-intuitive results. Which result would be counter-intuitive when you analyse a technology for its pros and cons?
Re: Debian decides not to decide on AI-generated contributions
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'd MUCH rather see a holistic embrace and integration of these tools into our ecosystems. Telling people "no AI!" (even if very well defined on what that means) is toothless against people with little regard for making the world (or just one specific repo) a better place. That doesn't address the controversy because you are a reasonable person assuming that other people using AI are reasonable like you, and know h…
>other people are reasonable like you No AI needed. Spam on the internet is a great example of the amount of unreasonable people on the internet. And for this I'll define unreasonable as "committing an action they would not want committed back at them". AI here is the final nail in the coffin that many sysadmins have been dealing with for decades. And that is that unreasonable actors are a type of asymmetric warfare…
> Spam on the internet is a great example of the amount of unreasonable people on the internet.
AI also generates spam though, so this is a much bigger problem than merely "unreasonable" people alone.
Re: Debian decides not to decide on AI-generated contributions
#159Given the 10x+ productivity rate, it would be reasonable to establish a higher quality acceptance bar for AI submissions. 50-100% more performance, correctness, usability testing , and one round of human review.
If a change used to take a day or two, and now requires a few minutes, then it's fair to ask for a couple hours more prompting to add the additional tangible tests to compensate for any risks of hallucinations or low quality code sneaking in
Re: Debian decides not to decide on AI-generated contributions
#160My two cents: I've been coding practically my entire life, but a few years back I sustained a pretty significant and lasting injury to my wrists. As such, I have very little tolerance for typing. It's been quite a problem and made full time work impossible. With the advent of LLMs, AI-autocomplete, and agent-based development workflows, my ability to deliver reliable, high-quality code is restored and (arguably) bett…
If you sign off the code and put your expertise and reputation behind it, AI becomes just an advanced autocomplete tool and, as such, should not count in “no AI” rules. It’s ok to use it, if that enables you to work.
this is equivalent to claiming that automation has no negative side effects at all.
we do often choose automation when possible (especially in computer realms), but there are endless examples in programing and other fields of not-so-surprising-in-retrospect failures due to how automation affects human behavior.
so it's clearly not true. what we're debating is the amount of harm, not if there is any.