Re: GR: Ban LLM contributions from Debian

Pierre-Elliott Bécue <[email protected]> Thu, 23 Jul 2026 19:17:17 +0200
Newsgroups	gmane.linux.debian.devel.vote
Message-ID	<[email protected]>
Marc Haber <[email protected]> wrote on 23/07/2026 at 18:09:35+0200:

> On Thu, Jul 23, 2026 at 06:00:50PM +0200, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
>>Lucas Nussbaum <[email protected]> wrote on 23/07/2026 at 10:00:13+0200:
>>> If I push some work-in-progress, experimental code to a branch
>>> just to see how it would go through CI, and someone else decides to
>>> extract that crappy code from my branch and ship it, I think the problem
>>> is with someone else, not me.
>>
>>Nowhere did I state that humans can't do crap. It doesn't me that we
>>should push automated systems to do more crap based on these grounds.
>
> But why should we not let us be assisted in doing crap if we're going
> to do crap anyway? Bad people are going to do AI assisted crap, good
> people are going to produce less crap if they are allowed to use
> assistance of their choice.

Because we produce 10 times the crap 10 times faster, which has a
significant impact and produces more strain?


> We let people use arcane workflows maintaining their packages (whether
> we like them or not), which makes the entry hurdle to understand their
> packages higher. Forbidding modern ways of working (whether we like
> them or not) also raises that bar.

I'm not forbidding anything and it's not my intent. I expect humans to
review their gen-AI work before pushing it, that's all.

> Is that really what we want to do?

What I want to do is to demand those using these tools to not give up
their skills and intellect in favour of letting an LLM do all the job.

>>> I think that "The submitter is solely responsible for the submitted
>>> work" is sufficient in that case: I would be solely responsible for
>>> pushing WIP stuff to a branch (and that's fine), and someone else would
>>> be solely responsible for deciding that that code should be shipped.
>>
>>Until you (or your agent) decides not to push in WIP but rather directly
>>on main.
>
> If we repeat talking to "commit" or "push" as being the bad point, why
> don't we just forbid AI tools to commit or push? I would probably
> actually be WITH that rule.

Maybe you sould re-read the ballot option I proposed?

-- 
PEB
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 853 B)