this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2026
662 points (99.1% liked)
Technology
87624 readers
4453 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Good. There will be choice.
I like this attitude. I think if the LLMs weren't forced down everyone throats, there would be a lot less hostility towards them
It’s just so suspiciously and aggressively being shoved down our throats.
Yes, it's not the technology I hate, it's the people pushing it, demanding it, saying it will replace humans. Those people can fuck right off. Technology exists to serve humans, not the other way around. We are being sold a lie. The technology has some interesting aspects, but the pushers are pushing bullshit.
Technology has always replaced humans though. That's ultimately the point. The problem becomes when there aren't alternatives for humans to do but we still live in a capitalistic and consumeristic society.
I think everyone want's their lives to be easier, but they also want to be able to eat, survive and thrive.
Alright. Hang the fuck on.
Class war.
Technology is incapable of doing anything. It literally can do nothing. It can be used as a tool for sure.
It's currently being used to fuck you. It's fucking me. It's fucking us.
BUT ONLY AT THE DIRECTION OF BILLIONAIRES
Tools are labour made solid. They're built by workers, and used by other workers in order to be more productive. Unlike a worker, a tool can be owned, which is why the owner class will always prefer more of the "skill" in production come from tools and processes, even at the cost of some craft or quality. Because they get more control.
Anyway LLMs are like a knowledge tool in this case. A truly devastating weapon in the class war, assuming workers agree to adopt it and help improve it.
Or forced by their employer by threat of homelessness
I meant collectively, not individually.
Obviously as a solitary worker you're probably going to have a hard time standing up to your employer.
Ah I got you
You can say that again.
Class warfare.
What is good for?
I do hate these people but at least they self-identify as idiots.
Why? AI and technology in general absolutely replaces human labor. For me, the hate is that is coming extremely rapidly and there is little thought from anyone about what's going to be next. A post scarcity society is inching ever closer, and individuals are just pissed about the system, governments can't do anything, and the owners are figuring out how to monetize it all. Seems like we are cooked if we don't all start working on ideas of what society looks like when very few need to actually 'work', or a larger portion of society cannot work. Because even without AI or technological advancements, the population is rapidly aging and simply will not be able to work.
Gen AI is not going to replace humans.
It already is, especially at the entry level, which is a massive problem. You went to college, have the education but don't have the skills, and an AI bot can do essentially 80% of your work, with little of the cost. Think about all the people already putting websites, marketing, images together that otherwise you would need to pay someone for. No need to pay for them, even if they do a better job, because most of the time you aren't looking for 100% when 80% will do. That's the unfortunate reality that we all live in.
I find it all very "people writing text/code by hand on a computer they own isn't generating subscription revenue and can't be data mined by advertisers and governments as it's passing through a data center unencrypted"-type suspicious...
They want to make everybody dependent upon AI for information that will then be used to misinform people in order to control them.
I've been saying this for years. Look at taxi's. In my city in 2005 there were 8 major taxi companies. Each with hundreds of drivers on the road at any given time. Now we have 2 of those 8 remaining, and they're essentially shell companies with 2-3 drivers on the road. The last 4 times I've tried ordering a cab the traditional way, I've been told there's no drivers available. Now it's all Uber. And Lyft. You can't call them. You need a cell phone, and you need internet access.
All the major corporations are in agreement that we all need cell phones, and we all need to be tracked 24/7. And now with AI, they're getting their data straight from the source. There are men out there who talk to an AI girlfriend. Not sexy stuff. I mean imagine sitting at the dinner table, and discussing your day.....with your AI girlfriend. Meanwhile, ALL that data is going straight to the companies that host the AI.
Another side effect is that AI will make people dumber. In case you haven't noticed since the 1970s, there has been a GOP push to make the citizens dumber and dumber. Easier to control. Easier to fool. Easier to get away with things.
So now you got ram being sold for computers that haven't been built yet, to be put in data centers that haven't been built yet, to run an AI system that isn't functional yet, in order to steal the jobs of employees that can't be replaced yet, all in an effort to chase profits that were never possible in the first place since everyone hates AI.
You wanna see some shit go down? Tell the companies we'll use their AI if they get the unredacted epstein files released. See how fast they bribe the right people then.
Now tell the politicians we'll stop caring about the epstein files if they forcibly ban all data centers in the country. See how fast they act on that.
Now we sit back, wait, and watch the fireworks. Oh, and by the way, we're going back on our word either way. Whomever wins, fuck em.
I like your energy.
I'm trying to imagine what this might be like. How sexy voice and vapid is AI girlfriend?
I mean at this point people are looking for connections, so that bot who will do basically whatever you say and stroke your ego, sure seems like something 'better' than actually going out and being rejected. There likely is going to be a point in the future where people have more 'augmented friendships' than actual friendships.
That's almost surely configurable
Nonsense. This is one of those malice / incompetence things.
Everything we're seeing can be described by dumb / lazy / greedy management and greedy venture capitalists.
No one actually has a plan to make everyone dependent on AI with the intent to control them. The intent is to harvest value from them.
You would be wrong
I remember Elon Musk fiddling with Grok. Just look at the "Trans"-article in Grokipedia.
It insists upon itself.
If big tech corners the market, we have no choice but to come to them for compute. You can stifle speech, control markets, awareness of new developments before they’re public.
It’s a power grab.
For me, it's first and foremost how they were/are trained and who gets all the profits/benefits.
Yup, of free and open self-hostable ones I am a lot more accepting, but I need big corpos to all crash and burn.
Yeah this goes for copyright protections too. I could give a fuck about some sloperater generating Tony Stark giving Mickey Mouse a handjob, but corpos saving even $0.01 from a model tuned by scraping deviantart, other amateur sources, I can't abide.
Regardless, they have no control over upstream packages. Are they going to move away from the linux kernel 100%?
I'd assume that this deals with stuff that the Debian project maintains itself, like the package files. Like, it doesn't mean that they won't package code that has been written using AI.
They're definitely going to be building it from source and delivering those packages though.
Im also certain they're not going it catch it all in their own packages.
I don't think that's what's being discussed?
There's no assertion that the debian OS as installed will be free from AI generated code.
I presume the assertion is that the debian project's code of conduct will require some level of human involvement in code generation.
Its definitely being discussed and voting is happening as we speak.
https://www.debian.org/vote/2026/vote_002
No it isn't. That proposal specifically states that upstream code is not included in the ban.
Literally in proposal A:
Cool downvote tho
Reproduced here, if desired. Put in a collapsible spoiler tag because it is long.
Debian LLM voting web page
Proposal A
Choice 1: No LLM contributions to Debian via Social Contract
Preamble
This proposal aims to expressly forbid any contributions to Debian written with the use or assistance of large language models (LLMs) or other generative AI tools.
The scope of this GR is (non-exhaustive):
It does not include:
Rationale
Debian has a well-earned reputation for stability. This stability is crucial to Debian's position in the free software ecosystem. 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.
In practical terms, LLM usage raises the following concerns:
1. Copyright
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[1][2]. 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. Quality
LLM output has many well-known problems with accuracy.[3][4][5] A LLM can never "know" if its output is correct since it merely produces syntactically likely combinations of the training data. In some environments this is good enough. In Debian, it is not. For instance, in packaging, each Debian source package is unique. Since packaging syntax and best practices have changed over time, a LLM-produced package will have a mixture of contents spanning the age of the archive, with watch files that do not work, overrides out of context, imaginary copyright, and will generally be unfit for upload. A seasoned Debian contributor with packaging expertise may find some limited usefulness here, but a new contributor cannot, and would not know how to fix it. These same quality and accuracy concerns apply clearly to all of the areas listed in the scope of this proposal above. If Debian were a closed organization comprising only domain experts who never leave, this might not be an issue; however,
3. Community
Debian is a project that is more than just code: it is a community built on shared interests in free software and solving technical problems. Debian intentionally grows this community through many means, and new contributors are always encouraged to join. Allowing LLM contributions breaks this. New contributors submitting LLM output for review places an unnecessary strain on the reviewer, which can lead to burnout. Furthermore, LLM-dependent new contributors do not actually learn and understand the details of Debian packaging or processes, so they cannot come to replace a former burned out DD.
4. Ethics
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.[6] This has had a major negative impact on Debian's public web resources, effectively a large scale and perpetual Denial of Service attack on sites that many users rely on. As a consequence parts of our infrastructure were not reachable at all, and JS-based checks had to be enabled. Many other projects were similarly affected. Furthermore, LLM training consumes a staggering amount of resources[7], and the user verification systems that we have been forced to implement as protection waste resources as well. This is blatant disregard for the internet as a public resource, wastes system administrator time, and although individual LLM sessions do not directly use massive resources or DoS the public web, the fact that they can be used at all is a direct result of these unethical behaviours by the LLM companies.
Debian has a Social Contract. [8] Our priorities are our users and free software. Debian is Stable. [9] Users and organizations choose Debian because it is reliable and secure.
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.
In conclusion, allowing LLM contributions is contrary to the social contract and the common cause of creating a free operating system with a focus on quality and stability.
Proposal
In the interest of not eroding Debian's reputation or further damaging the community, LLM-assisted contributions should be prohibited from inclusion in Debian.
Though our position is that LLM contributions are contrary to documents already ratified by Debian, in order to remove all doubt, we propose the following addition to the Social Contract:
Possible Issues
Other projects exploring similar decisions have elicited a common reply: "How will you enforce a ban on LLM contributions?" While enforcement could be a challenge, this is a statement of intent by the Debian community, and we trust this community to adhere to it in good faith.
Citations
[1] https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#copyright-considerations
[2] https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines
[3] https://web.archive.org/web/20240614004123/https://news.northeastern.edu/2023/11/10/ai-chatbot-hallucinations/
[4] https://web.archive.org/web/20250328154700/https://transformer-circuits.pub/2025/attribution-graphs/biology.html#dives-cot
[5] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/openais-sam-altman-tells-salesforces-marc-benioff-that-ai-hallucinations-are-more-feature-than-bug-1c035c52
[6] https://lwn.net/Articles/1008897/
[7] https://tech-insider.org/ai-data-center-power-crisis-2026/
[8] https://www.debian.org/social_contract
[9] https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-reference/pr01.en.html#_what_is_debian
Disclaimers
Sources
GNOME discussion: https://discourse.gnome.org/t/loupe-no-longer-allows-generative-ai-contributions/27327
(CC0) Gentoo AI policy: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/AI_policy
Codeberg AI policy: https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/pulls/1253#issuecomment-19820434
This document was written by Matthias Geiger and Jesse Rhodes with input from Sledge and josch, organically and without language model assistance.
Proposal B Proposer
Lucas Nussbaum [lucas@debian.org] [text of proposal] [text of amendment] [text of amendment]
Proposal B Seconds
Proposal B
Choice 2: Allow AI-Assisted Contributions with conditions
Using its power under Constitution section 4.1 (5), the project issues the following statement describing its current position on AI-assisted contributions. This statement describes the position of the project at the time it is adopted. That position may evolve as time passes without the need to resort to future general resolutions. The GR process remains available if the project needs a decision and cannot come to a consensus.
The Debian project recognizes that AI-assisted contributions raise many concerns, e.g. about the technical quality and maintainability of such contributions, and their legal status. AI itself also raises additional concerns, about its impact on society at large, on the IT industry and on Free Software; about its environmental impact; and the aggressive or non-compliant practices of AI scrapers.
Nevertheless, many Debian contributors find AI tools helpful when contributing to Debian, and ultimately for improving Debian.
Given both the benefits and risks of AI assistance, and the controversial discussions within the community, the Debian project finds it necessary to clarify its position on AI-assisted contributions and establish clear guidelines.
The Debian project allows AI-assisted contributions (partially or fully generated by an LLM), provided the following conditions are met:
Proposal C Proposer
Ian Jackson [iwj@debian.org] [text of proposal] [text of amendment]
Proposal C Seconds
Proposal C
Choice 3: Reject LLMs as far as practical, update Code of Conduct
Summary: Reject LLMs (generative "AI") as far as practical
BACKGROUND
LLMs have many serious problems, including: undermining the mechanisms of free software community building; environmental damage; exploitation of authors; disruption to open web hosting by aggressive scraping; generation and promulgation of bullshit, polluting the information commons; hazards to users' mental health; economic bubbles and distortion of the computer hardware market; fraud; ownership by horrible people and companies; and so on. Ethical and safe use of this technology is almost impossible.
Ideally, LLM output should not form any part of software that we rely on, nor should LLM output ever take the place of human-written prose.
Unfortunately some of the wider software world, including many of our upstreams, take a different view. Therefore a complete ban on LLM output as part of Debian is currently impractical.
REQUESTS
We request that all contributors to Debian avoid the use of LLMs in their Debian work.
We request that all decisionmakers within Debian discourage LLM use as much as practical. Practicality is a judgement call and we recognise that it will involve uncomfortable compromises.
We request that everyone, even outside Debian, should refrain from using this technology. In particular, the Free Software and Open Source communities should reject LLMs. We recognise that not everyone will heed this call.
REQUIREMENTS (SUPPLEMENT TO THE CODES OF CONDUCT)
Within Debian, messages to humans (including for example bug reports, mailing list messages, discussions on Salsa, and blog posts on Planet Debian) must be drafted solely by humans without LLM assistance.
Moderators and disciplinary teams may make narrow and tailored exceptions to rule 4, and decide on interpretation.
Any use of LLMs for Debian work must be disclosed.
Individual projects and maintainers may ban LLM contributions completely. Such bans (including by upstream projects) must be respected.
Violations of these requirements should be treated as violations of the relevant Code of Conduct and should result in swift and proportionate disciplinary action.
Proposal D Proposer
Pierre-Elliott Bécue [peb@debian.org] [text of proposal] [text of minor change]
Proposal D Seconds
Proposal D
Choice 4: Accept AI contributions for Debian specific work
Debian as a project does not endorse or recommend the use of generative AI assistants for software development, as it raises multiple concerns about ethics, legality, copyright, etc.
Nevertheless, Debian acknowledges that these practices are already in use and here to stay. Rather than banning their use, which seems counter-productive and unenforceable, the project chooses to place responsibility on contributors and therefore defines the following guidelines.
These apply exclusively to code and work done specifically for the Debian project (Debian websites, applications, resources, packages, etc.). They do not apply to any upstream work. In what follows, "work" refers to the contributions done specifically for the Debian project.
Proposal E Proposer
Marc Haber [zugschlus@debian.org] [text of proposal]
Proposal E Seconds
Proposal E
Choice 5: Responsible Use of Generative AI
Using its power under Constitution section 4.1 (5), the project issues the following statement describing its current position on AI-assisted contributions. This statement describes the position of the project at the time it is adopted. That position may evolve as time passes without the need to resort to future general resolutions. The GR process remains available if the project needs a decision and cannot come to a consensus.
Debian neither endorses nor prohibits the use of generative AI tools in the development, maintenance, or documentation of software, packaging, documentation, and other media published within the Debian Project. We recognize that such tools can substantially improve the productivity of contributors when used responsibly, allowing volunteers to spend more of their limited time on work that requires technical expertise, judgment, review, and collaboration.
The Debian Project nevertheless expects that all contributions submitted to Debian, regardless of how and with which tools they were produced, satisfy the same standards of quality, correctness, maintainability, and legal compliance. The use of a generative AI tool does not diminish the contributor's responsibility for the work they submit. Contributors are expected to understand, review, test, and, where appropriate, modify AI-assisted output before incorporating it into Debian. Blindly accepting or uploading AI-generated material without appropriate human review is inconsistent with Debian's established development practices. We enourage our contributors to disclose whether a contribution was made with AI assitance, but do not require them to do so.
Debian acknowledges that the legal status of material produced by generative AI systems remains the subject of ongoing discussion in many jurisdictions, including questions relating to copyright, authorship, licensing, and potential reproduction of training material. The Project does not seek to resolve these unsettled legal questions through this General Resolution, nor does it adopt a position on whether AI-generated output is, in whole or in part, copyrightable or derived from copyrighted works.
Instead, Debian continues to rely on the judgment and responsibility of its individual contributors. Project members are expected to exercise appropriate care when using generative AI tools, to consider the provenance and licensing implications of material they contribute, and to avoid introducing content whose legal status they cannot reasonably justify. Existing Debian policies governing licensing, copyright, software freedom, and the acceptance of contributions continue to apply irrespective of the tools used to produce those contributions.
Contributors are expected to exercise appropriate care when designing and implementing workflows that incorporate generative AI tools. In particular, they should ensure that confidential information, private communications, security-sensitive information (such as embargoed information about security bugs that is not yet public), cryptographic keys, credentials, and other non-public material relating to the Debian Project, its infrastructure, or its community are not disclosed to third-party AI services unless such disclosure has been explicitly authorized and is consistent with Debian's security and privacy requirements.
The use of generative AI does not alter Debian's established expectations regarding large-scale or automated project actions. Contributors intending to perform actions with broad project impact, such as mass bug filing or patch submission, large-scale code modifications, or other automated changes or requests affecting many packages or contributors, should seek prior discussion and consensus through the appropriate project channels before proceeding. Any such automated process should be overseen by a human who remains accountable for its behavior and output.
This resolution therefore affirms that generative AI is neither exempt from nor subject to special rules beyond the standards already expected of Debian contributors. The responsibility for every contribution rests with the contributor who submits it, who remains accountable for its technical quality, legal acceptability, and suitability for inclusion in Debian.
Proposal F Proposer
Tobias Frost [tobi@debian.org] [text of proposal]
Proposal F Seconds
Proposal F
Choice 6: A cautious approach to generative AI
Using its power under Constitution section 4.1(5), the Project issues the following statement describing its current position regarding the use of generative AI within Debian.
Debian recognizes that generative AI raises significant ethical, legal, technical, and social concerns. These include questions relating to copyright and licensing, privacy, the provenance and quality of generated material, the health of Free Software communities, and the long-term consequences of widespread reliance on AI-generated content.
Accordingly, Debian encourages contributors to avoid the use of generative AI where practical and to prefer human authorship, collaboration, and technical understanding over AI-generated output.
At the same time, Debian has long relied on the judgment and responsibility of its contributors rather than prescribing individual workflows. Contributors remain responsible for everything they submit, irrespective of the tools used in preparing a contribution. Existing Debian standards regarding quality, correctness, licensing, and legal compliance continue to apply.
Contributors using external generative AI services should exercise particular care not to disclose confidential information, embargoed security information, credentials, cryptographic keys, private communications, personal data, or other non-public Debian information.
Nothing in this resolution should be understood as requiring contributors to use generative AI, nor as preventing contributors or maintainers from choosing not to use or accept AI-assisted contributions. Debian's existing collaborative processes remain the appropriate means for resolving such differences while allowing the project to continue making progress.
While disclosure is not required, contributors are encouraged to voluntarily disclose the use of generative AI where appropriate, allowing others who prefer not to interact with AI-assisted content to make informed choices.
Such disclosure should be regarded as a courtesy to fellow contributors rather than an indication that AI-assisted contributions are subject to different technical or procedural standards.
The Debian project has always recognized the commitment and professionalism of its members. All contributions are under the responsibility of the Debian Contributor making it, no matter the technology they have behind. We trust all Debian Developers, Maintainers and Contributors will continue to uphold the high quality values that have distinguished our project from its onset.
Proposal G Proposer
Gard Spreemann [gspr@debian.org] [text of proposal]
Proposal G Seconds
Proposal G
Choice 7: Debian is created by humans
Preamble
This proposal aims to ensure that contributions directly to Debian are created by humans, while at the same time avoiding restrictions on the tools those humans may choose to use when contributing.
The proposal deals with direct contributions to Debian, including, but not limited to:
The proposal does not cover indirect contributions, i.e. those originating from upstream works.
Generative AI is characterized by producing output of a nature that would ordinarily be produced and consumed by humans. The proposal seeks to restrict this output itself from entering Debian (except possibly indirectly, from upstream). It does not seek to restrict Debian contributors from consuming such output as part of contributing to Debian.
Rationale
Debian has a well-earned reputation for stability. This stability is crucial to its position in the free software ecosystem. It is our belief that a significant part of this stability comes from Debian contributors having mutual understanding, trust and respect for each others' work and precious time. Generative AI tends to come with practical, legal, ethical or ecological concerns that warrant care or extra work that often ends up being borne by people other than those wielding the AI. We believe that this asymmetry between contributors leveraging generative AI to produce material, and those humans who bear that extra care and work, will erode the project's mutual understanding, trust and respect.
While Debian has a long-standing tradition of strict rules for what goes into the distribution, it does not typically dictate what tools people use when contributing to the project. With this principle in mind, the proposal does not affect the use of generative AI as an assisitive tool to explore, research, analyze, critique, etc., when contributing. The responsibilities that come with using the output of an AI in such a role is then not transferred onto the wider project in the same problematic way as when the output itself is the contribution.
Proposal
In order to safeguard the project's mutual understanding, trust and respect, we disallow the output of generative AI as direct contributions to Debian.
Those who use such tools assistively in their work are reminded to ensure that the resulting contribution is in line with the DFSG and the Social Contract in general.
In summary, humans create Debian.
Acknowledgements
This proposal is inspired by GCC's AI Policy [1] and rust-lang's LLM Usage Policy [2]. Its wording is influenced by another ballot option [3].
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/ai-policy.html
[2] https://forge.rust-lang.org/policies/llm-usage.html
[3] https://www.debian.org/vote/2026/vote_002#texta
Proposal H Proposer
Holger Levsen [holger@debian.org] [text of proposal] [text of corrections]
Proposal H Seconds
Proposal H
Choice 8: Avoid the use of LLM: climate destruction is a deal breaker
LLM usage accelerates the destruction of our ecosystem (planet earth) and that is a deal-breaker
Using its power under Constitution section 4.1(5), the Project issues the following statement describing its current position regarding the use of LLM (Large Language Models) within Debian.
We don't have a concern with the LLM technology as such: it's just maths and enough training material, which outputs a very large set of numbers that we can use to infer new material from existing material. But we cannot talk about the LLM technology without talking about who is pushing for its usage, who is doing the training and how, what effect those have on our limited resources, and what are the economical and political motives of these.
Foremost we don't understand how anyone can agree that global LLM usage accelerates the destruction of our ecosystem, planet earth, and not feel like that is a deal-breaker.
Too often the only response we've seen to this point was that other activities are also bad (some even worse) for the climate. How is this even an argument? The planet is burning, we should try to stop that as much and as fast as we can! If others aren't stopping, isn't that even more reason to compensate for their irresponsible actions?
And while we're on that point: All of our users live on this planet, so protecting this planet is a matter of life and death for all of us. In other words, caring about something as big as climate change during our Debian work is self evident.
Debian recognizes that LLM also raise significant ethical, legal, technical, and social concerns. These include questions relating to copyright and licensing, privacy, the provenance and quality of generated material, the health of Free Software communities, and the long-term consequences of widespread reliance on LLM-generated content.
That said, we would like to emphasize that we condemn LLM (resource) usage but not LLM users. Fight the game, but not the players.
We also acknowledge that LLM usage can be hard if not impossible to detect and that Debian as a distribution cannot really impose LLM policies on other projects we package and distribute. Therefore this text is just a position statement. This said however, we appreciate the disclosure of LLM usage.
Accordingly, Debian encourages contributors to avoid the use of LLM where practical and to prefer human authorship, collaboration, and technical understanding over LLM-generated output.
At the same time, Debian has long relied on the judgment and responsibility of its contributors rather than prescribing individual workflows. Contributors remain responsible for everything they submit, irrespective of the tools used in preparing a contribution. Existing Debian standards regarding quality, correctness, licensing, and legal compliance continue to apply.
The Debian project has always recognized the commitment and professionalism of its members. All contributions are under the responsibility of the Debian Contributor making it, no matter the technology they have behind. We trust all Debian Developers, Maintainers and Contributors will continue to uphold the high quality values that have distinguished our project from its onset.
Please keep being excellent to each other and the only planet we have.
Data and Statistics
For this GR, like always, statistics will be gathered about ballots received and acknowledgements sent periodically during the voting period.
Majority Requirement
Proposal A needs a 3:1 majority, the other proposals need a simple majority.