Re: GR -- Allow AI-Assisted Contributions

Sean Whitton <[email protected]> Tue, 24 Feb 2026 11:48:53 +0000
Newsgroups	gmane.linux.debian.devel.vote
Message-ID	<[email protected]>
Simon Richter [24/Feb  1:54am +09] wrote:
> No, I expect the people performing the simple tasks with AI assistance will no
> longer gain the necessary understanding to graduate from there and take on
> more complex tasks over time, but this has been how we've traditionally gained
> members.
>
> Commercial software development is, in my opinion, already doing it wrong to
> look at this through a productivity angle, because they are ignoring the
> long-term effects this has on the market. For a community project, this is
> even more wrong, because we can't even throw money at failures.
>
> That's my point: even if AI were to deliver all that is promised and the
> legal, ecological and economical problems were solved, it is still not a good
> fit for Debian, so debating whether the water usage amortizes over a greater
> number of queries[1] or whether the legal system agrees with the people with
> the deep coffers is the second step, and presumes that we
>
> 1. actually want it,
> 2. can use it in a way that is consistent with our values, and
> 3. can build social structures for the project to keep operating in this
> changed landscape
>
> We are divided on 1, which is why we're having this debate at all, and we will
> not reach a consensus here. I personally detest it, because it's taking over
> precisely the fun aspects of coding and leaves me with the kind of drudgework
> that I used to raise my consulting fees for. There is a reason I only do one
> or two hours of code review per day at work, and spend the rest actively
> developing code that is as easy to review as possible.
>
> For 2, I think that it is mostly incompatible with our values. AI coding
> assistants aren't free software, and they cannot be free software. They can be
> OSI-licensed frontends to a proprietary online service that cannot be
> replicated even if the source code to all the server side components was
> published. We have established elsewhere in this thread that an "ethically
> sourced" training dataset would not be sufficient.
>
> Like a system that has been locked down with cryptography so only approved
> binaries can be loaded, this technology is outside the user's control, and we
> should not be endorsing it, even if we are only using its output.

I think this point about on-boarding is very interesting, thank you for
raising it and explaining it so well.

-- 
Sean Whitton
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 869 B)