Debian discussion to ban LLM, https://www.debian.org/vote/2026/vote_002.
-
Debian discussion to ban LLM, https://www.debian.org/vote/2026/vote_002.
Undeniable arguments, with sources!
> It is our belief that widespread LLM usage comes from the "move fast, and break things" attitude that, while common in many parts of this industry, is contrary to what makes Debian Debian, and is inappropriate for Debian contributors. (1/3)
Is not it still in discussion? Options are listed but there is not "ban" or "just do it" recommendation now.
CC: @hywan@floss.social
-
Debian discussion to ban LLM, https://www.debian.org/vote/2026/vote_002.
Undeniable arguments, with sources!
> It is our belief that widespread LLM usage comes from the "move fast, and break things" attitude that, while common in many parts of this industry, is contrary to what makes Debian Debian, and is inappropriate for Debian contributors. (1/3)
This looks to be still in active discussion….. confused
-
@hywan still "in discussion" though, together with the opposite proposal below
-
This looks to be still in active discussion….. confused
@millie It’s not banned yet. It’s a discussion about to ban LLM.
-
@millie It’s not banned yet. It’s a discussion about to ban LLM.
@millie I’ve updated the original toot to clarify.
-
@millie I’ve updated the original toot to clarify.
Not seeing the edit for some reason… using WAFRN so it should support edits….. buh
-
> LLM companies directly hurt the free software community as whole by scraping the whole web for training data without any regard for license, copyright, or even established conventions such as robots.txt. (3/3)
-
> LLM companies directly hurt the free software community as whole by scraping the whole web for training data without any regard for license, copyright, or even established conventions such as robots.txt. (3/3)
@hywan May Proposal A win. Proposal B sounds like the usual "AI is a world-destroying, brain-destroying, theft machine but it does have its uses!"
-
> LLM output has very unclear legal status: it may be possible to copyright on its own merits, or not; it may be affected by all of the licenses and copyrights in the training data, or not. Debian Policy and the DFSG require absolute clarity for licensing and copyright. Software and other contributions written conventionally by humans with unclear copyright or license status are not allowed in Debian; LLM output should not have a special exception to this… (2/3)
This + the final statement of proposal A : " Debian is not here to generate as much code as possible requiring manual review by a shrinking number of human volunteers, or to package every piece of software, or to rush new features, but these are what LLMs are used for. " could readily be applied e.g. to scientific research.
"/Universities/ are not here to generate as much /papers/ as possible requiring manual review by a shrinking number of /human researchers/" ...!
-
Debian discussion to ban LLM, https://www.debian.org/vote/2026/vote_002.
Undeniable arguments, with sources!
> It is our belief that widespread LLM usage comes from the "move fast, and break things" attitude that, while common in many parts of this industry, is contrary to what makes Debian Debian, and is inappropriate for Debian contributors. (1/3)
@hywan Debian has been sensible on lot of topics over years. Nice them being able to formulate why this is just bad, and no, fact that Jonny suddenly can do kernel code is not, in fact, good for long term support of software.
-
Debian discussion to ban LLM, https://www.debian.org/vote/2026/vote_002.
Undeniable arguments, with sources!
> It is our belief that widespread LLM usage comes from the "move fast, and break things" attitude that, while common in many parts of this industry, is contrary to what makes Debian Debian, and is inappropriate for Debian contributors. (1/3)
@hywan@floss.social hell yeah
time for Debian GNU/kNetBSD (or OpenBSD) so we can have a slop free kernel too -
-
J jwcph@helvede.net shared this topic
