Debian is polling its developers on whether to permit or ban "AI" contributions.

[teledyn@mstdn.ca]

@lproven

[ruenahcmohr@infosec.exchange]

@lproven debian has a ban on contributions in general, I have a few cool little command line utilities and programs I wanted to contribute and found out it would take a 3 year certification process where I had to travel around the world exchanging usb keys to be allowed to and would only succeed if , after it all, one of them was willing to 'bless' me.

I honestly have no idea how ANY of the packages in debian got there, but I can TOTALLY understand when projects host there own packages.

[sunweaver@fosstodon.org]

@RueNahcMohr @lproven Well, some of us (being a Debian Developer myself) managed... It requires commitment, but outcome is really worth it: a worldwide group of very committed Free Software enthusiasts.

[jackpearse@nrw.social]

@lproven

I am asking myself what happens to the past LLM contribs. And cintribs which indirectly contain LLM code.

I personally find this debate hysteric. Because people will silently use offline LLMs for this and that and lie about the usage.

From my point of view the new situation is asking on how to do quality management in future. It’s asking about us needing new tools for admins. Better classifiers. Code Quality Scores.

How do you want guarantee a ban? This is just theory.

[jackpearse@nrw.social]

@lproven
This ballot taks about a ban of LLM code if detected.

So my question is: how is it detected?

For me this is the most important question of all.

[jackpearse@nrw.social]

@lproven

So please guy‘s, just answer this question to me:

I provide a pull request. And I guarantee it was hand made.

How do you approve it was not LLM made. Please. How?

[ruenahcmohr@infosec.exchange]

@sunweaver @lproven I'm on a different part of the spectrum, I do electronics and made utilities for other people doing electronics. I dont have 3 years to dedicate to being an official debian developer, I have main.c
I have come to suspect that the only way a program gets into debian is when debian adopts it, and I have no idea how that process works. someone somewhere must say "our distribution is not complete until we have netcat" and netcat is absorbed into debian. at the same time packages that are important, like pump and orphaner, seem to have been kicked out for some reason.

[pelle@veganism.social]

@jackpearse @lproven
trust.

it's the same in many situations, like when you ask whether food or drink is vegan.

of course some asshole can lie — »yes« — and use a cow's breast milk instead of oat in the coffee.

then, if you find out they're lying, you out them and eject them.

letting people know that a harmful behaviour is not welcome goes a long way.

[cal@kind.social]

@pelle @jackpearse @lproven Also, if someone's first reaction to a boundary is to point out how they would circumvent that boundary, maybe that says more about them than it does about the boundary.

[pndc@social.treehouse.systems]

@jackpearse @lproven That one's easy: people who submit AI code just can't resist boasting about the fact.

[sassinake@mastodon.social]

@lproven

One day we will wake up and NOTHING will work anymore.

NOTHING.

but all the poor countries - the 'shithole' countries? - yeah, they will just continue to bring and sell and buy food at the local market, and ride their bikes back to their casa, and cook on their woodstove, after getting water from the well.

but we will all die within a week.

[jackpearse@nrw.social]

@lproven

What I hate about this movement is: no one explains how you detect it? What about false positives?

I once contributed to OSS. My pull request was rejected. Because it had the „feeling“ of LLM. That feeling was me summarizing all changes of mine and a file listing. I wanted to safe the maintainers time. And exactly this „service“ was treated as „feeling“ like LLM made.

This is ridiculous. You work for days. And then people fuck you because they have a „feeling“.

[angelascholder@mastodon.energy]

@lproven BAN!

[jackpearse@nrw.social]

@pelle @lproven

„trust“ is no answer to this question. An LLM ban can only wirk if there is first a presumption of innocence of some kind. And, above all, there must be criteria. These must be formulated in abstract terms. Otherwise, it becomes arbitrary and a matter of personal belief.

Once a hand made pull request of mine was rejected because of a „feeling“. This is fucked up.

A ban also needs abstract criteria.
Otherwise contributions will die out.

[sunweaver@fosstodon.org]

@RueNahcMohr @lproven Send me an email at point me to your code projects. I can help bringing those to Debian if quality standards and license/copyright attributions are sufficient. If not, I can advise how to fine-polish. Mail to sunweaver at debian.org

[jackpearse@nrw.social]

@pelle @lproven

Again. I am not asking about the BAN. I am asking about the METHOD.

HOW do you detect Slop?

This is the most important question. And if the answer is „by a feeling“. Then we have lost science by far and entered the realm if esoteric.

[jackpearse@nrw.social]

@Cal @pelle @lproven

No. People have already set the boundary and excluded people who write good code. And accuse them to have used LLM „by a feeling“. And this starts to happen more often. And I can accept a ban only if there is a method to detect this.

„A feeling“ is no computer science.

So, how is „malware“ detected, please? What is the formal method?

.

[ferrix@mastodon.online]

@lproven @joe if we lose Debian what is left

[jackpearse@nrw.social]

@lproven

Thorvald says LLM is allowed to be used for the kernel. Then LLM use is banned by Debian.

Is the Kernel then banned?

In biology and medicine they use AI to detect cancer cells. Is this also banned then? Or are these type of programs allowed then?

What is with Computer Scientists developing free LLM tools. Also banned?

This kind of approach isn‘t realistic.

The overall issue is a quality problem. And needs tools to maintain quality. A ban is simply symbolic politics.

[jackpearse@nrw.social]

@pndc @lproven

I also assume the ban will happen. But I give that ban one year. Then it will be released again. Because the ban will not solve the quality problems.

The true problem is that tests have no real
Meaning anymore, if LLMs can modify them. Tests coild to be separate repositories, which cannot be touched vy everyone. Or we could invent tools which check the grade of code modifications?