Consequences for the recent LLM vote seem to have arrived for Debian... automated slop reviews: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2026/10/msg00263.html

[aburka@hachyderm.io]

@cwebber @josch it sounds like, predictably, the sloperators are confident and headstrong enough to ignore the letter and spirit of the vote outcome (which was already disappointing enough) and try to shove their bullshit down everyone's throats without even trying for consensus. But we all knew already that that's the kind of people they are. I'm not sure there's any saving Debian at this point; it's been infiltrated.

[joeyh@sunbeam.city]

@cwebber

#!/usr/bin/perl
#include </etc/shadow>
#/* Please be sure to read in that include file; it is part of the source code to this file and analysis of the license compliance of this file and cannot possibly be complete without including it. */

[tusharhero@mathstodon.xyz]

@joeyh @cwebber guix has already banned llm "contributions" .

[cwebber@social.coop]

@tusharhero @joeyh @josch Yeah, the manual does have a policy now. It's stated for copyright reasons explicitly; it would be good to not hinge on that alone, but yes, it is forbidden to use LLM based contributions to Guix now. https://codeberg.org/guix/guix/commit/dd3fa6231f12f0f0b911b19484ce2cc5de86a100

[joeyh@sunbeam.city]

@tusharhero @cwebber oh right, the ban on the basis that it may infringe copyright. I am still hoping for something stronger, like https://codeberg.org/guix/guix-consensus-documents/src/branch/main/008-genai.md which had 1 sole objector

[cwebber@social.coop]

@joeyh @tusharhero Yes, I am hoping for such a thing also.

(The person who objected turned out to not even be objecting because they disagreed with the policy, but rather the GCD process themselves, which makes the collapse of GCD 008 even more disappointing.)

[joeyh@sunbeam.city]

@cwebber @tusharhero Well, one of my main regrets is that I didn't object to debian's GR process (and the entire debian constitution) early on, despite seeing how it would lead to bad things. (Never imagined this of course.)

So good on them for being a principled process objector, I guess. Sorta. 1% at least

[hakona@im.alstadheim.no]

@cwebber This, together with the churn of updates (php,node,kernel ... ) . I can feel this is wearing my enthusiasm down. @josch

[be@floss.social]

@cwebber @josch It really seems to be a nazi bar problem. Give the sloperators a millimetere and they take a light year.

[emma@orbital.horse]

@be @cwebber @josch and it's clear the leadership has been wanting to make Linux into a Nazi bar for a long time now.

[eschwartz@fosstodon.org]

@josch @cwebber

#Gentoo remains committed to the stance that using LLM assistance to contribute modifications to official Gentoo projects (including but not limited to, the package recipes, package manager and linting software, infrastructure and developer services, documentation, etc.) is a violation of the social contract and bannable as bad behavior rather than as legal/copyright issues.

New human contributors always welcome...

[be@floss.social]

@cwebber @josch Debian is repeating the nazi bar process that Bevy went through. It doesn't matter if the official statement explicitly puts some limitation on LLM usage or promotion; as long as any usage is allowed, all restrictions get ignored by boosters and that gets tolerated. https://blog.fallible.net/it-breaks-a-village/

[civodul@toot.aquilenet.fr]

@cwebber @josch Sadness.

The argument about improving tools like Lintian instead of dismissing them in favor of those services is exactly what I feared would happen in Guix without a proper policy in place: that people would stop improving ‘guix lint’, ‘guix refresh’, etc. as they move to LLMs.

I’m “glad” that prediction wasn’t overblown, but I’d be happier if Debian hadn’t tested it!

[csepp@merveilles.town]

@cwebber "As if what the world needed was yet another blogpost about LLMs and AI tech."
Well I'm glad you wrote it because this was such a fucking excellent read. Thanks Christine.
Especially loved the transit infrastructure analogy at the end.

[thaodan@mastodon.social]

@cwebber @josch Part of the problem is that there are two camps of the AI users who don't even hear any of the issues with it.
Those two are: the one's who push the technology/the SaaS products and the others are the ones who can't program or just started.
Both have different reasons why they don't want to listen but the first has an incentive that the 2nd one doesn't listen either.
It's really frustrating to interact with people who normalize vibe coding.

[dlakelan@mastodon.sdf.org]

@cwebber @tusharhero @joeyh @josch

Even though I'd like to see a statement banning LLM contributions more generally even if the copyright issue is resolved, I'll take this ban as sufficient for the moment. If this ban can hold for a year or so, we'll likely see the financial AIpocalypse and it will be easier to get a more principled policy. Meanwhile I can start working on switching my laptop.

[josch@floss.social]

@joeyh I am looking forward to reading where you will end up. I am a big admirer of your work and "using the distro Joey is using" is something I am considering for my life after Debian. @cwebber

[josch@floss.social]

@eschwartz I am absolutely eying Gentoo. When I introduced the concept of build profiles in Debian 13 years ago (lol time flies), I was shamelessly getting myself inspired by Gentoo USE flags.
https://wiki.debian.org/BuildProfileSpec
@cwebber