Re: Draft permissive ballot option (was: GR: Ban LLM contributions from Debian)

Hi,

On Mon, 27 Jul 2026 18:57, Aigars Mahinovs <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>That is up to you. Noone can force you to do any volunteer work. But if you
>state that you have time to review patches from one class of contributors,
>but not from another class of contributors, regardless of the technical
>content of those patches or their size or quantity, then why others can't
>do the same for other classes of contributors? Maybe never accepting any
>patches from people workign for a corporation? Or from people from USA?
>

if contributors externalize their low-level contributions on me in the 
little time I can find for my volunteer Debian work, that increasingly 
raises my desire to contribute elsewhere. I will just ignore such 
patches.

If a human contributor writes a bad patch (by hand), I can point it out 
to them, and tell them what they need to change. OTOH with LLM-generated 
content I might as well flip a coin until something passable comes out.
Most people generating code like this can't even explain then what the 
code does, which is not surprising. Furthermore, LLMs then to write 
overly long code rather than concise, neat functions.
While even todays models with context can be mostly correct on the 
code-aspect, they fail on (IMO) the most important aspect: social. LLMs 
can never know, or feel, or (properly) gauge the social context, and 
tend to censor topics that their authors thought to ban.
E.g. if you ask DeepSeek about Tia'mnen Square, it will output that it 
does not know about it. The other models have similar issues.

Social interaction and context in code is a very important part in the 
free software community and Debian, and LLMs do not know and do not care 
about it.

That alone stands reason to not use them, not even mentioning the 
horrendous resource usage and the political agenda behind them.


best,