Re: LLM usage in Debian -- ballot options comparison

--nextPart3962870.kQq0lBPeGt
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; protected-headers="v1"
From: Soren Stoutner <[email protected]>
To: Debian-Vote ML <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: LLM usage in Debian -- ballot options comparison
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2026 13:38:18 -0700
Message-ID: <7974940.EvYhyI6sBW@soren-desktop>
Organization: Debian
MIME-Version: 1.0

On Wednesday, July 29, 2026 10:40:44=E2=80=AFPM Mountain Standard Time Jose=
ph R.=20
Justice wrote:
> [The following, EXCEPT FOR THIS NOTE HERE, was entirely created with
> the use of Google GMail generative AI, the "[TAB] to improve" option
> they offer.  I copied the previous message into my clipboard, opened a
> response to it, deleted everything already in the response (e.g. the
> previous message incorporated as a quote with the preceding "> "-s as
> usual, copied the previous message (e.g. the *not* quoted version)
> from my clipboard into the text entry field, brought my cursor to the
> top of the field, added a few blank lines, and then pressed [TAB].
> What's below is the result, as created by GMail as an "improved
> message".  Different, huh?  Not necessarily worse, not necessarily
> inaccurate, maybe even *better* in the eyes of a few / many / all.
> But, most *certainly*, different.  Anyway.  Hope this is of some use,
> interest, or at least amusement.  Thanks for your time.  Be well, take
> care, do good things.  As always, I remain, your (well, *a*, not
> necessarily *yours* mind you!) dog on the Internet ...  Joseph]
>=20
> Hi Holger,
>=20
> As a mailing list observer rather than a Debian developer, I wanted to
> share my perspective on this discussion.
>=20
> When I read Lucas's original message, I found the situation irony to
> be quite amusing rather than offensive. In a debate concerning whether
> the use of LLMs should be permitted or banned within the project, it
> is interesting that someone would use those very tools to summarize
> the proposals and ongoing commentary. It seems like a reasonable
> approach given the current technological landscape, assuming the
> generated summary remains fair and accurate.
>=20
> That said, considering the broader context of the discussion, I can
> understand why some participants might find the preemptive use of AI
> tools in a shared space off-putting. While I do not entirely share
> that view, I can see where your concerns are coming from and believe
> they were raised in good faith.

My personal opinion is that I find the *premptive banning* of AI off-puttin=
g. =20
I don=E2=80=99t think anyone has the grounds to request that anyone else in=
 Debian not=20
use AI until a GR passes making that the official Debian position.

=2D-=20
Soren Stoutner
[email protected]
--nextPart3962870.kQq0lBPeGt
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=wOIi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nextPart3962870.kQq0lBPeGt--