On Fri Jul 24, 2026 at 12:25 PM -03, Ian Jackson wrote:
Summary: Reject LLMs (generative "AI") as far as practical
BACKGROUND
LLMs have many serious problems, including: undermining the mechanisms
of free software community building; environmental damage;
exploitation of authors; disruption to open web hosting by
aggressive scraping; generation and promulgation of bullshit;
polluting the information commons; hazards to users' mental health;
economic bubbles; distortion of the computer hardware market;
fraud; ownership by horrible people and companies; and so on.
Ethical and safe use of this technology is almost impossible.
Ideally, LLM output should not form any part of software that we rely
on, nor should LLM output ever take the place of human-written prose.
Unfortunately some of the wider software world, including many of our
upstreams, take a different view. Therefore a complete ban on LLM
output as part of Debian is currently impractical.
REQUESTS
1. We request that all contributors to Debian avoid the use of LLMs in
their Debian work.
2. We request that all decisionmakers within Debian discourage LLM use
as much as practical. Practicality is a judgement call and we
recognise that it will involve uncomfortable compromises.
3. We request that everyone, even outside Debian, should refrain from
using this technology. In particular, the Free Software and Open
Source communities should reject LLMs. We recognise that not
everyone will heed this call.
REQUIREMENTS (SUPPLEMENT TO THE CODE OF CONDUCT)
4. Within Debian, messages to humans (including for example bug
reports, mailing list messages, discussions on Salsa, and blog
posts on Planet Debian) must be drafted solely by humans without
LLM assistance.
5. Any use of LLMs for Debian work must be disclosed.
6. Individual projects and maintainers may ban LLM contributions
completely. Such bans (including by upstream projects) must be
respected.
7. Violations of these requirements should be treated as violations of
the Code of Conduct and should result in swift but proportionate
disciplinary action.
8. Any contributor who feels they cannot write in English without
assistance, may write in their native language, and expect readers
to use translation tools of their choice. In that case a
human-written English summary would be very welcome but is not
required. In any case we promise not to shame anyone for any
linguistic mistakes.
Seconded.
I want to add, though, that I'm not sure how I feel about preventing LLM
usage for translation. Also, point 8 is in direct conflict with Planet's
rules and the mailing lists code of conduct, which mandate English usage.
Bye :)
