Debian votes to allow "responsible use of generative AI"

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Aug 29, 2026, 4:29 PM UTC

nixpulvis wrote: post #204

timcobb wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's my understanding that this same debate raged when writing became a thing. Many viewed it with suspicious, or derision, as memorization was the big intellectual thing. So writing and reading back to remember was terrible. It's true it was a dependence, but the value was too high. With reading and writing a person could work on and synthesize from a far wider range of concurrent materials than one could with just…

Big difference though, once you know how to read and write, nobody can take that away from you.

Post by Grimeton » Sat, Aug 29, 2026, 4:32 PM UTC

Post by overfeed » Sat, Aug 29, 2026, 4:33 PM UTC

ls612 wrote: post #154

jayofdoom wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing. And that's the problem -- the issue isn't "should a contributor be able to use AI" it's quickly becoming "is this entire contributor an AI agent". Every actual-human who gets a bad first experience hurts the project. The contributors having to be suspicious of new people hurts the project. The whole thing just sucks, and I don't know how to fix it. I use claude-code, but the AI ecosystem and some of the auto…

[flagged]

Post by Supermancho » Sat, Aug 29, 2026, 4:35 PM UTC

qsera wrote: post #124

kaffekaka wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What stopped them before?

Before they were not able to spam large PRs

Post by NuclearPM » Sat, Aug 29, 2026, 4:36 PM UTC

hliyan wrote: post #43

chuckadams wrote: post #6

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.

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.