Re: LLM usage in Debian -- ballot options comparison

--bLyy/1rJEv5zzk8T
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 30/07/26 at 12:57 +0200, Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues wrote:
> Hi Lucas and everybody else,
>=20
> Quoting Lucas Nussbaum (2026-07-30 09:16:14)
> > On 30/07/26 at 07:48 +0200, Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues wrote:
> > > But I
> > > think it became clear from the other mega-thread that there are a lot=
 of people
> > > with very strong feelings about this topic. In fact, their feelings a=
re
> > > apparently so strong that they open the big can of worms that is a GR=
, we spend
> > > a *lot* of our time on very difficult discussions and we risk a hard =
division
> > > of our community or even some of our members leaving. That's tough st=
uff.
> > > Apparently, some in our community feel strong enough about this topic=
 that they
> > > are willing to risk all of that and put so much trouble on their fell=
ow DD's
> > > limited Debian time. Even if this whole LLM topic is fine for you, yo=
u probably
> > > see that this would not've been made into a GR if some of our friends=
 would not
> > > feel *very* strongly (as in: badly) about that topic.
> >=20
> > This paragraph works both ways:
> > Some of us are also convinced that AIs is fundamentally changing
> > software engineering, and want to use that technology in the context of
> > Debian, to the point that they would lack motivation to continue working
> > on Debian if it was not possible.
>=20
> my paragraph was meant in the context of the Debian related work we do ri=
ght
> now. I am not using LLMs to do anything Debian related and I fail to come=
 up
> with anything that my refusal to use LLMs could result in you feeling bad=
 over
> my work.  Me not using LLMs likely does not make you feel bad.

I'm not trying to convince you (or others in the anti-LLM camp) to use
LLMs. I agree that there are valid concerns about LLMs, that need to be
weighted and compared to their usefulness. I understand that this
process is person-specific; I respect the willingness not to use LLMs,
and I also respect the willingness not to read LLMs output, up to the
point where it clearly harms my own ability to use LLMs in the context
of Debian.

What I meant with "This paragraph works both ways" is that "a lot of
people" in your paragraph could apply both to pro-AI and anti-AI
contributors. I'm not trying to diminish the feelings of those in the
anti-AI camp, but there are also people in the pro-AI camp that would
reduce or stop their Debian activities if it was not possible for them
to use AI in that context.

> Sorry, I explained myself poorly there. Your message was fine (for me). I=
 like
> that you disclose your use of genAI and your disclosure of your prompt.  =
I have
> read your SPEC.md and you have clearly put a lot of work into this. I don=
't
> want to belittle that work. Your SPEC.md has been useful to me for example
> because of the 12 bullet points which I can use to rate my own understand=
ing of
> each ballot entry. So what I would've preferred is, if you had not spent =
time
> on writing this prompt and then send it to some LLM to generate HTML and
> markdown pages. Your message itself was fine.

Full disclosure: SPEC.md is also AI-assisted. Basically, in an
interactive session using a local agent (OpenCode), I started by
throwing an LLM at the list of proposals, iterated a bit (such as
manually adding some comparison criterias), also fed it the whole
discussing to let it identify additional comparison criterias, and then
asked it to generate SPEC.md to keep a trace (~ "source code") I could
reuse later. That process of saving the user's intent is something
I've also been doing for code, by asking the LLM to include a
"Prompt-Summary" trailer in commit messages (summarizing the various
exchanges that happened interactively so that the commit message
captures the original motivation for the change, not just a description
of the change itself).

> I see you saw my "Kitten" example in the other mail. I used this example
> because I think (hope!) that we can agree that killing baby kittens is re=
ally,
> really bad and we should not be doing that. Going back to being more real=
istic:
> if I would now try to weigh costs versus benefits of use of genAI then on=
 the
> one hand we have for the costs a long list containing items like: all the=
 big
> and powerful models being owned by billion dollar corporations, big enoug=
h to
> sway politics, big enough to sway public opinion, that make the rich rich=
er
> (with a surprising number of rich people with clearly anti-democratic fas=
cist
> view points), the poor poorer (no everybody can be an artist!), support t=
he
> climate crisis with data centers requiring more electricity than nation s=
tates,
> use and pollute water, requiring supercomputers to train (not something w=
e do
> as part of a source package build), scraping our web because suddenly
> everything is free game (server admins hate this trick), making me want t=
o buy
> faster hardware because my browser has to solve anubis riddles on every w=
ebsite
> i use, oh no the hardware is now super expensive so you can only afford i=
t if
> you have enough cash around, the whole copyright dilemma, the whole
> hallucination issue, the issue with inherent sexism and racism (why are t=
hese
> points so low on my list?), the problem that if the LLM is wrong I cannot=
 "fix
> it", pushing back on the idea of "free software needs free tools", the de=
ep
> fakes, the problems for my students with learning because the LLM just ha=
nds
> them the answer (yes the smart ones will still be smart but many will jus=
t not
> put the effort anymore) and so on...  Oh and there is also the small thin=
g of
> my hobby being replaced by a machine but that issue really pales in contr=
ast to
> the long list of *real* problems.
>=20
> And on the list of benefits we have, very cynically speaking: it now was =
much
> easier to create a 17 kB HTML table.
>=20
> Now you can go and you can challenge any of my points above. And yes, you=
r HTML
> table will not make the oceans boil or democracy fail. But the things we =
do do
> not happen in a vacuum. The things we do influence others and they normal=
ize
> how all of us (even outside Debian) do things going forward. The free sof=
tware
> movement also started small and see where we are now. I would not like th=
is to
> become another thread where we discuss how local models are more ethical =
than
> claude/chatgpt (they are) or how things will be so much more efficient in=
 the
> future (they probably will be). The point I'm trying to make is this:
>=20
> Most of us are in a very, very privileged position. Many of us can work f=
or
> Debian because we either have secure jobs where we are paid to do this or
> because we live a sheltered and financially secure enough life to do this=
 in
> our free time. Compared to most of us on this planet, we can count us as
> *extremely* well off. And I understand how for probably all of us, creati=
ng
> software is something very important to us because otherwise we wouldn't =
put so
> much of our time into it. But at the end of the day: it's just software. =
 It's
> just an interesting sequence of zeroes and ones. Being able to produce th=
is
> sequence faster is a first-world-problem of such a high degree of privile=
ge
> that it pales against most of the issues I have with LLMs even if all of =
the
> issues in my list above would only be half as bad as I think they are.
>=20
> For myself this means that I rather "limit myself" and write software "sl=
owly"
> or that I don't do some things at all. That way, I'm not part of the prob=
lems I
> see and instead am part of the world that I want to live in.
>=20
> Sorry Lucas that this long (and emotional) mail was now a direct reply to
> yours. I *highly* respect your work and your technical expertise. Just to
> affirm, I do not think that you acted in bad faith and I don't think that=
 your
> messages were written badly. It is useful for me to read your messages.

Thanks a lot for this write-up.

I really don't want to sound as if I'm trying to convince you that the
benefits of AI outweight its costs. But there are a couple of things I'd
like to write to explain my point of view. I still need to organize my
thoughts so I'll do that later.

Lucas

--bLyy/1rJEv5zzk8T
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=SEeE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--bLyy/1rJEv5zzk8T--