Matthias Geiger <[email protected]> writes: > > 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
Seconded.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
