Re: Thoughts about LLM usage

Marc Haber dijo [Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 01:35:14PM +0200]:
>On Tue, Aug 11, 2026 at 07:49:23PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
>>FWIW I agree with you using an LLM to prepare an NMU — and then
>>_double-checking a full diff_, and becoming _personally_ responsible for
>>any breakage it introduces.
>
>I'd like to know what it means for you to be "personally responsible". 
>I have broken key packages more than once without using an LLM, would 
>I face other consequences if I broke key packagees with an LLM 
>assisted contribution, any if yes, why?

Well, Debian is after all a volunteer-driven project, where we do not
have the power to send you to jail to think on what you did wrong. But
I suppose you broke said key packages out of a mistake, and promptly
corrected them.

I think you felt personally responsible, and acted as quickly as
possible to (probably mistranslating from a Spanish expression) “get
your foot out of the hole”.

It was not just that you found a bug in random code: you found (I have
also done so, many times) a mistake in a contribution you made. And
you felt it was necessary for you to fix the error.

I have denied requests from potential contributors for me to sponsor
their packages, because I am not familiar enough with the language /
tooling they use, and they are unable to take direct responsibility in
Debian: *I* would be responsible for whatever mistakes my upload would
introduce.

I would expect any DD uploading LLM-generated or LLM-assisted
packaging to be as dilligent with that as with any other packaging
they do.

>>We should be able to use whatever tools we can, but whatever goes in the
>>distribution signed by [email protected] is _my sole responsibility_, and I
>>cannot point fingers at any LLM for doing something wrong.
>
>That's, in my opinion, how Debian works today. Even when I sponsor a 
>package from a newcomer, I take some responsibility for that, and 
>that's the reason why I don't enjoy sponsoring packages that don't use 
>Salsa CI.

Precisely.