Joost van Baal-Ilić <[email protected]> writes: > Hi, > > Matthias e.a.: thanks a lot for helping by settling this LLM-issue; much > appreciated! > > Le Thu, Jul 23, 2026 at 12:03:35AM +0200, Matthias Geiger a écrit : >> On Wed, 22 Jul 2026 23:06, gregor herrmann <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Wed, 22 Jul 2026 17:35:37 +0200, Matthias Geiger wrote: >> > >> > > What follows is a GR proposal to ban LLM contributions. >> > >> > This text looks quite garbled, both in my MUA and on >> > <https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2026/07/msg00000.html>. >> > Could you please post it again in a readable way? >> >> right, sorry. >> Wrapped at 80 chars below :) > > Let me give this a shot.... > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Hi all, > > What follows is a GR proposal to ban LLM contributions. > > It is time for Debian to make a statement regarding generative AI and LLM > usage. Since this has been discussed in exhaustive detail on -private and > -project, the proposal follows below without any further discussion. > > 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):
do you need the "(non-exhaustive)" bit - can people really vote on something that is not completely set out? > - 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. The text is very long - the second sentence seems debatable and nothing to do with AI, suggest deleting > It is our belief that > widespread LLM usage comes from the "move fast, and break things" > attitude Similarly, would drop this sentence (and how paragraph, but especially this: people can agree with your position on AI without sharing this belief) > 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 "very" is debatable, and given there is no substantiating evidence it actually weakens the point, would remove thta word "it may be possible to copyright on" is not correct english, im not actually sure what you intended - "it may be possible for <something> to be copyrightbale"? > 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]. Is this sentence actually true? i think the "absolute" is somewhat debatable - debian doesnt get any legal advice on this. (I think the next sentence is clear and all you need to say on this) > 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. (suggest this bit alone is the main point, should be earlier) > > 2. Quality > > LLM output has many well-known problems with accuracy.[3][4][5] I tihnk this section is v lightly evidenced and im not sure you really need any of it. > > 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. the "for instance" doesnt seem to have anything to do with quality, would drop most of this section (purely just from a pov of making the argumemnt clearer) > 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. This is debatable, and human ouput can have all of these issues - would drop > 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. It;s really confusing to start arguing against your own point like this. (some "new" contributors may have spent a long time researching be just as capable as experienced contributors - would drop this) > These same quality and accuracy concerns > apply clearly to all of the areas listed in the scope of this proposal > above. > this seems un-neccessary to include tbh > If Debian were a closed organization comprising only domain experts who never > leave, this might not be an issue; however, did you omit some words after "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. > (i think this seciton is clear, but it's slightly confusing to talk aboiut LLM-dependent new contributors and burnout here - it raises the question as to whether debian is in favour of AI for experienced people) > 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] i think you should really make this a bit less definite - many LLM companies have done this, but > > 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 stable" seems to have limited relation to the rest of this section (there are many other reasons people choose debian, debian stability is debatable, and this no longer seems to be about ethics: i suggest your argument is stronger if you delete everyhing from "debian has a social contract" to the end of this section. > 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. (in particular, as a conclusion this really doesnt work very well) > > > 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) suggest not numbering this as 6: it's not a continuation of the previous list at all, but a new list (except there's only one item, so doesnt need to be numbered) > We will not allow direct contributions to Debian written with the use or > assistance of large language models (LLMs) or other generative AI > tools. Shouldnt this be "Debian does not allow"? > Direct contributions are defined as packaging, native Debian software like > lintian, documentation and translations written by Debian contributors, and > official Debian web resources, etc. do you need "etc." here? > Other categories such as upstream projects written with LLM assistance > may be included at a later date. Do you need this sentence - clearly debian can do a new GR on whatever it wants, so other things can always be added. removing this makes the following "This ensures" clearer as well. > 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 why plural? you only list one thing below > =============== > > 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 ahere to it in good faith. > > END PROPOSAL > > > Citations Do you mean "references"? > ========= > [1] > https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#copyright-considerations > [2] https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines > [3] > https://web.archive.org/web/20240614004123/https://news.northeastern.edu/2023/11/10/ai-chatbot-hallucinations/ > [4] > https://web.archive.org/web/20250328154700/https://transformer-circuits.pub/2025/attribution-graphs/biology.html#dives-cot > [5] > https://www.marketwatch.com/story/openais-sam-altman-tells-salesforces-marc-benioff-that-ai-hallucinations-are-more-feature-than-bug-1c035c52 > [6] https://lwn.net/Articles/1008897/ > [7] https://tech-insider.org/ai-data-center-power-crisis-2026/ > [8] https://www.debian.org/social_contract > [9] > https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-reference/pr01.en.html#_what_is_debian > > > Disclaimers > =========== > > - Citations are for background information only and do not reflect an > endorsement of specific websites. > - Some ideas and wording were derived from the sources below. the second isnt really a disclaimer. maybe just call this a note > > > Sources suggest merging with the above > ======= > > GNOME discussion: > https://discourse.gnome.org/t/loupe-no-longer-allows-generative-ai-contributions/27327 > (CC0) > > Gentoo AI policy: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/AI_policy > > Codeberg AI policy: > https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/pulls/1253#issuecomment-19820434 > > This document was written by Matthias Geiger <werdahias> and Jesse Rhodes > <sney> with input from Sledge and josch, organically and without language > model > assistance. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
