this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2026
55 points (82.4% liked)
Linux
68054 readers
850 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
AI is a tool. You already trust the developers to build an operating system with the tools available.
From the Debian announcement
It's quite clear they don't allow vibe coding. As you say, the kernal itself allows AI contributions in a similar way.
If you're worried about the ethical aspects of AI then you'll probably have to move to NetBSD. If you're only worried about quality this is a non issue.
Trust is 3 parts; authenticity, competance and empathy. Trust is broken if any of those are insufficient.
If others believe AI creation and AI use hurts people then leaving that unaddressed makes one appear to lack empathy.
"Quality of code" ultimately boils down to judging how it may effect people (reading it, changing it, using the software it compiles to). To worry about code quality is only to care about people. Only caring sometimes is inconsistent - it questions their character.
You make good points however you can't stop a person doing something because it goes against your beliefs.
In this case the Debian developers had a vote and the majority agreed that using AI was ok.
I've read the post and they still have a code of conduct, they still have standards that they will keep. That's good enough for me to continue trusting the devs.
Didn't every single option in that 'vote' include using ai though?
And didn't they all seem like very deliberately long winded options, designed knowing that the majority of users would only read the titles?
There are 2 tools to stop someone from harming others: words or violence. If people disagree an action is harmful to others then we aught to use our words to discover who's belief better represents reality.
I think using AI to write software could be okay but the AI in use today isn't. AI makers circumvent our social licenses and redistribute our code covertly through a mathematical blender. Debian OS authors agreed that there are legal unknowns regarding the copyrightability of generated code and didn't say AI was okay or bad one way or the other. Debain should already know today's AI spits at our faces.
I'm not disputing that AI has severe issues. I think it's more appropriate for governments to focus on effective regulation than open source developers disallowing useful tools.
The majority of governments are at least partially at the mercy of the usa government in this respect though, easily one of the most absurd, and corrupt governments on the planet.
Indeed! It's more inportant than ever to switch to open source software, which is why i dont see the point in placing restrictions on developers.
ai will be the death of open source.
It might be a tool, but it is naïve not take all of its externalities into account.
From tante's piece:
Edit: a good source of said externalities: https://codeberg.org/ethical-foss/open-slopware/src/branch/main/why_not_llms.md
Is using AI as bad as child labour?
I don't believe so. But i don't believe in copyright laws either. If a developer chooses to use AI it's their choice.
Obviously best case scenario is they use a local open weights model. I believe this will be more commonplace in a few years.
I think a skilled developer using AI to improve open source software is a case of the ends justifying the means.
Edit: the link you provided highlights the problems with large capitalist corporations owning the compute power and generic AI use by the untrained population more than the issue of skilled developers contributing to open source software.
While these things are a problem i don't believe a distro should stop contributions just because a developer consulted an LLM.
Analogies are comparisons of structure, not intensity. There are a lot of things that are "not as bad" as child labour, that doesn't make them OK.
GPL is a response to copyright laws. If there were no copyright laws we wouldn't need GPL.
Prohibiton doesn't work. Regulations need to passed by government bodies not open source developers.
You do realise that even if copyright were abolished, large, powerful corporations would continue to exist and even manage to use the absence of copyright to their advantage?
Without the GPL being enforced, a company like Microsoft could finally start digging a moat around Linux without constraints.
"Copyright" was made to empower and protect large corpos like microsoft.
If you think copyright "protects" linux in any way, you're a fool.
It doesn't matter what the reason for its creation is, you can make similar arguments about laws against assault and murder or the right to vote, what matters is what it's doing in the current legal situation.
If you think that the end of copyright will suddenly render corporations powerless, you are beyond naive. Some will fail to adapt, undoubtedly, but many will not just adapt, they'll be able to take full advantage of this new situation. Copyright isn't the only mechanism they can dig a moat with, and as long as the economic incentives remain what they are, they will find a way and be no less exploitative. Meanwhile, the individual creator or indeed projects like Linux will lose what little protections they have and be completely at the mercy of these monsters. Forget exploitative contracts, they can just exploit you without one!
A better world without copyright is possible, it just doesn't look exactly like this world, except without copyright. The abolishment of copyright is not an ideal, it's a means to an end. But for those means to lead to a good end, how and when it happens matters. To cheer on a development because it nominally achieves what you believe is needed to lead to your ideal outcome, even when the way it happens would lead to an outcome that is in direct opposition of the ideals that lead to that belief in the first place, is a sign you've stopped thinking.