Hi,
On Sat Jul 25, 2026 at 2:36 PM -03, Adrian Bunk wrote:
The #1142332 example from Lucas is also quoting, so that's obviously
permitted?
If not, why would it make a difference when quoting LLM output that
had been pasted to an upstream location?
I think the difference is between quoting a message posted by another
person, and text generated by a language model prompted by myself.
I do also remember a certain "editorial amendments" GR where it was not
clear to voters what was actually voted on until after the vote.
It's nice to have more clarity before voting, thanks for the questions :)
"messages to humans must be drafted solely by humans" in the CoC means
that using nmudiff is no longer permitted, and "without LLM assistance"
in the CoC means that a spellchecker that uses AI must not be used.
The former seems unintended, and the latter is on the thin line
between unavoidable and disciplinary action.
As the context is rejecting LLMs, I guess the output of
non-language-model programs, like nmudiff, is fine. The spellchecker
concern is trickier, as it depends on what you consider a spellchecker.
While I wouldn't consider problematic the usage of a program which
corrects clear errors like "helol" -> "hello" and happens to use an LLM
to do so, text editors which have "rewriting" features like [1] may be
more problematic, yes.
[1]: https://support.apple.com/en-gb/guide/mac-help/mchldcd6c260/26/mac/26
"blog posts on Planet Debian must be drafted without LLM assistance"
doesn't leave much space to post about how to use LLMs.
Does the GR intend to ban posts about LLM usage, or should this stay
permitted?
I would say they would be permitted, see below.
Does "We request that everyone, even outside Debian, should refrain from
using this technology." also imply that LLM packages can no longer be
maintained in Debian?
The "REQUESTS" section are not requirements. Also, I think that
development of language models, when done in ways which avoid the issues
in the "BACKGROUND" section, is not bad per se. It is also acknowledged
that today ethical use of this tech is hard, but that should not forbid
working towards improving the situation.
(note: I'm not advocating for "ethical" chatbots, but I believe that
research for narrower use of the underlying technology is not evil; but
that's not what "big AI" companies are trying to do anyway)
It is puzzling that such a strongly worded anti-LLM GR does not mention
LLM packages in Debian - this is an area that is under our control, and
it should be clear to every voter reading the GR text whether it makes
any decision on this.
I think that it clearly does not disallow that, even if the wording
criticizes the technology.
Note that this is just my opinion and interpretation of the text. I did
not write it and do not expect to know the answers to your questions.
Bye!
