RT if you want a CLEAR statement about AI from all GNU/Linux distributions and are ready to quit any distribution that is ok with integrating AI slopware.

[khrys@mamot.fr]

@dallo That's precisely why I'm asking

[dallo@pouet.chapril.org]

@Khrys
Yes just saw your other post. Was coming back here to edit mine.

[fmasy@piaille.fr]

@Khrys Ready to quit ?
It depends ... what is the degree of cleaness that we consider ?

I may be wrong, but isn't the linux kernel project already accepting contributions made with the use of AI-generated code ?

If this is the case, then there is no such GNU/Linux AI-free distribution anymore.

Edit: to avoid confusion, that would be something I regret. But would I have the strength to resist it ? I don't know.

[dallo@pouet.chapril.org]

@Khrys
Btw if you didn't see it yet, there is a list of projects that pledged not to use AI or are disrupting it https://noai.starlightnet.work/list.html

[asci@indieweb.social]

@Khrys I think Linus was quite clear on that. What will happen when generated code will be in the kernel? You can also check position or cURL creator on LLM code, which is widely used

[shaft@piaille.fr]

@Khrys I want a clear statement by the kernel devteam too

[breizh@pleroma.breizh.pm]

@shaft@piaille.fr @Khrys@mamot.fr There you have.

AI Coding Assistants — The Linux Kernel documentation

(docs.kernel.org)

Time to switch to BSD ? Well, I don't know their position.

[nabnux@piaille.fr]

@dallo @Khrys QEMU

[mafraise@pouet.chapril.org]

@Khrys

Pour repouet, on ne devrait pas écrire RP au lieu de RT?

[khrys@mamot.fr]

@mafraise J'ai écrit en anglais. En anglais on dit retoot 🤪

[formidableinc@framapiaf.org]

@Khrys ah je veux bien un "clear statement" mais je préfère que les gens puissent se faire une opinion par eux même (basée sur l'éducation d'un espresso du lundi par exemple )

[shaft@piaille.fr]

@breizh @Khrys Ok, ça confirme ce que j'avais vu passer

Chez BSD, j'ai vu que NetBSD pour l'instant et la porte n'est pas totalement fermée (de toutes façons, reste ensuite le problème des softs au-dessus)

NetBSD Commit Guidelines

(www.netbsd.org)

[dallo@pouet.chapril.org]

@breizh @Khrys @shaft BSD is open source not libre. What about Hurd and Plan9?

[shaft@piaille.fr]

@dallo @breizh @Khrys I want tools usable by regular human beings with little or no technical knowledge. Not niche stuff for people with 30+ years of sysadmin experience

[dallo@pouet.chapril.org]

@shaft @breizh @Khrys I met people running Hurd/GUIX. They were not people with 30+ years of sysadmin experience. I never met anyone running Plan9 though.

[shaft@piaille.fr]

@ParadeGrotesque @breizh @Khrys The door is not 100% closed in NetBSD

“Code generated by a large language model or similar technology [...] is presumed to be tainted code, and must not be committed without prior written approval by core.”

An approval can be given

NetBSD Commit Guidelines

(www.netbsd.org)

[crell@phpc.social]

@Khrys With low level system libraries getting on the AI bandwagon, it may very soon be impossible to have an AI free distro.

We are well and truly screwed.

[shaft@piaille.fr]

@ParadeGrotesque @breizh @Khrys Anyway: you have your AI-Free kernel. Nice. Then all the softwares that will run on this kernel, ranging from the shell to the web browser have to be AI-free

[milagemayvary@mstdn.social]

@fmasy @Khrys

AFAIK GNU doesn't, got a source?

[paradegrotesque@mastodon.sdf.org]

@shaft

BSD user land (shell, utilities, etc.) is part of the distribution, and is often created and maintained by the same developers as the kernel.

So no AI there either.

Which means BSDs, in general, are more consistent and have slightly lighter utilities than Linux.

For example: ksh is usually a version of pdksh, and is maintained by several developers from all 3 major BSDs (if I remember well).

@breizh @Khrys