The proposed handling of LLM in Debian in the latest "Bits from the DPL" is a bit concerning.
-
@benjamineskola @mathew @zerodogg breaking news: "lint" considered harmful /s
-
@mathew @benjamineskola @zerodogg I've complained about LLMs used for code analysis. Mostly because, if the one used as my day job is representative, they massively suck at it.
@beeoproblem @mathew @zerodogg Yes, precisely. In my experience they produce a lot of output and when you dig through it all there's not actually very much of value to it.
And, besides which, if the argument against them is that they're based on plagiarism, that still applies if they're being used for review/analysis and not generation of new code.
-
The proposed handling of LLM in Debian in the latest "Bits from the DPL" is a bit concerning. It misses the mark by acknowledging issues with LLM usage, and then dismisses them all by saying that "As a society, we rarely respond with categorical refusal. Instead, we regulate, reflect, and take responsibility for how we use them." and suggesting absolutely no regulation or reflection (and no particular responsibility other than that which comes with any contribution).
I'm not a Debian developer, just a longtime user (and upstream for an unimportant package). But if Debian isn't the principled, ethical one, then I'm guessing no one will be.
@zerodogg Slackware is llm free afaik (this is NOT a serious suggestion to be clear) -
@ehashman I agree that it probably won't be possible to avoid software tainted by LLMs. But Debian can't only be about technical issues. Even this exact post provides plenty of examples that Debian *isn't* just about technical issues. Debian is also about community, and about ethics and freedom.
At this point, much of LLM-critique is about ethics. It's about how workers that are being abused to train the models. It's about them systematically undermining free software licenses by feeding them into the LLM grinder as fodder for generating code. As he mentions, it's also about the environment.
I hold Debian to a higher standard than others. Perhaps that's unfair. But it's also why I choose Debian. Sure, the distro is excellent on technical merits, but the difference from many others is the community and their thoughtful approaches to ethics and real-world issues.
Debian can't dictate what others do. But Debian can lead by example, and make principled stances. I've sort of come to expect that from them.
That said, I'm not one to dictate what Debian does. I don't get a vote when it comes to that. But it makes me sad, and I feel a bit hopeless, when even Debian doesn't take a principled stance.
@zerodogg @ehashman I'm disappointed that I only saw one person mention the ethical concerns, and nobody replied: https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2026/02/msg00060.html
-
@zerodogg @ehashman I'm disappointed that I only saw one person mention the ethical concerns, and nobody replied: https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2026/02/msg00060.html
-
The proposed handling of LLM in Debian in the latest "Bits from the DPL" is a bit concerning. It misses the mark by acknowledging issues with LLM usage, and then dismisses them all by saying that "As a society, we rarely respond with categorical refusal. Instead, we regulate, reflect, and take responsibility for how we use them." and suggesting absolutely no regulation or reflection (and no particular responsibility other than that which comes with any contribution).
I'm not a Debian developer, just a longtime user (and upstream for an unimportant package). But if Debian isn't the principled, ethical one, then I'm guessing no one will be.
-
@zerodogg @ehashman I'm disappointed that I only saw one person mention the ethical concerns, and nobody replied: https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2026/02/msg00060.html
@jasonaowen @zerodogg people aren't going to reply if there's nothing to add. ("+1" emails on mailing lists are obnoxious.) @demoographics said what they said and said it well
-
@zerodogg surprisingly Gentoo of all distributions took a hard line against AI
This may wildly end to me running Gentoo at this rate.
-
The proposed handling of LLM in Debian in the latest "Bits from the DPL" is a bit concerning. It misses the mark by acknowledging issues with LLM usage, and then dismisses them all by saying that "As a society, we rarely respond with categorical refusal. Instead, we regulate, reflect, and take responsibility for how we use them." and suggesting absolutely no regulation or reflection (and no particular responsibility other than that which comes with any contribution).
I'm not a Debian developer, just a longtime user (and upstream for an unimportant package). But if Debian isn't the principled, ethical one, then I'm guessing no one will be.
@zerodogg Note that I haven't seen a project-wide decision on this (yet). That's just the current DPL's opinion.
-
@zerodogg Note that I haven't seen a project-wide decision on this (yet). That's just the current DPL's opinion.
@Andres4NY And that does give me some hope. Debian has a strong track record of doing the right thing. But the way it was presented by the elected leader was discouraging, and it does matter what the leadership says.
-
@foolishowl @zerodogg what is the objection to specifically, though? Large language models as a technology, or specific vendors? Debian is never going to hand out licenses for an Anthropic or OpenAI product simply on the basis that they're proprietary software. But it's not like the project has ever *banned* the use of a paid, proprietary IDE to support one's work—how would it even know?
There exist LLMs trained on public, open data sets with public weights that can run on a personal machine, and would appear to be suitable for inclusion in Debian—are these tools also objectionable?
If the goal is "completely halt use of LLMs as a technology used in any form", I don't think it's realistic to expect Debian Developers to be able to accomplish this.
To begin with your last point, the goal. It is, in my mind, for Debian to take a principled stance, and base that on its existing values and ethics. It's not up to Debian if LLM's continue to see use in society at large, just as it's not up to Debian if people keep using non-free alternatives. But Debian can make a difference, and I'd argue that Debian does so every day. Debian *is* different from many other distributions. One only needs to look at the social contract to see that, and Debian goes to great lengths to uphold it. Debian is important partly because it puts its values first.
As for my objections, at this point it's hard to differentiate between the technology of LLMs and the harms that stem from the usage of them, mostly because those making said technology encourage harmful usage. Workers rights, a complete disrespect and active undermining of free software licenses, contributions to completely destroying the web by flooding it with nonsense and the environmental impact of training, are among my objections. I would say it's near impossible to use one in any kind of ethical way at this stage.
If Debian accepts contributions made with LLMs, then I would argue Debian is contributing to the negative effects I list above, partly by legitimizing them.
That said, If a model that respects licenses of the works it uses, a high bar it seems, has all of its training data, weights and other software licensed under a free software license, and is trained without significant environmental impact and without abuse of workers - then yes, that might be something that I could see be acceptable for contributions to Debian.
I'll also accept that there might still be LLM contributions being made, but without disclosure. But that doesn't erase the impact of taking a principled stance.
I don't need Debian to change the world on its own. But I don't prefer Debian on technical grounds alone, just like I don't write free software just because I need a particular piece of software myself.
-
The proposed handling of LLM in Debian in the latest "Bits from the DPL" is a bit concerning. It misses the mark by acknowledging issues with LLM usage, and then dismisses them all by saying that "As a society, we rarely respond with categorical refusal. Instead, we regulate, reflect, and take responsibility for how we use them." and suggesting absolutely no regulation or reflection (and no particular responsibility other than that which comes with any contribution).
I'm not a Debian developer, just a longtime user (and upstream for an unimportant package). But if Debian isn't the principled, ethical one, then I'm guessing no one will be.
-
R relay@relay.infosec.exchange shared this topic
