beep

joined 4 months ago
 

cross-posted from: https://piefed.world/c/tech/p/1367520/debian-says-yes-to-generative-ai-but-keeps-humans-accountable-for-the-code-they-submit

Discussions

The results of the Debian general-resolution vote on the use of large language models have been posted; the winner is choice 5: Responsible Use of Generative AI.

Responsible Use of Generative AI

Text of proposal:

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.

[–] beep@piefed.world 12 points 1 day ago (2 children)
[–] beep@piefed.world 13 points 1 week ago (5 children)

Bit off-topic, but here is a higher quality version of this:

[–] beep@piefed.world 1 points 1 week ago (3 children)
[–] beep@piefed.world 17 points 2 weeks ago

California just passed a law

Looks inside

Mon 1 Jun 2026

[–] beep@piefed.world 13 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Their study was based on analysis of 2.05 billion comments from 2,150 Reddit communities.

If they want to generalize their findings to all social media platforms, that's on them.

[–] beep@piefed.world 18 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

New creators applying for YouTube Partner Program (YPP) will need 8,000 qualified watch hours in the last 365 days, or 20 million qualified Shorts views in the last 90 days.

Old requirements for comparison:

1,000 subscribers with 4,000 watch hours in the past year or 10 million Shorts views in the past 90 days.

[–] beep@piefed.world 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Sigh

If you had read the situation, you would find that the information news outlet reported this first, then the media talked about it then Meta admit this in news statements. (They didn't even release a blog/press release).

While I don't rule out that it's a publicity stunt, I think it's very unlikely. Otherwise I would call Meta terrible at marketing because they are not loud about it at all.

In my opinion, OpenAI accident has triggered a wave of scans among AI companies to discover any problems before they get hold liable for damages by the hacked company and to solve them internally.

That's how I read the situation as of 7th of August. My opinion might change, if any new info came out that seem sus.

[–] beep@piefed.world 6 points 3 weeks ago (19 children)

Interesting.

Got any sources for this claim?

view more: next ›