I am sponsoring the whole proposal quoted below, without any modification to suggest.
> BEGIN PROPOSAL > > > 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): - Debian source packages > - Official Debian project software, such as lintian > - Debian web resources - Documentation and translations added by Debian > contributors > - Official communication from Debian > > It does not include: - Upstream projects using LLMs for development > - AI-related software > > > 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: > > 6. Works Created through the use of Large Language Models (LLMs) > We will not allow direct contributions to Debian written with the use or > assistance > of large language models (LLMs) or other generative AI tools. Direct > contributions are > defined as packaging, native Debian software like lintian, documentation > and translations > written by Debian contributors, and official Debian web resources, etc. > Other categories > such as upstream projects written with LLM assistance may be included at > a later date. This ensures that Debian remains a stable, trusted, and > reliable operating > system, and protects the interests of the Debian volunteers who make it > possible. > > 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. > > END PROPOSAL
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
