-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
Thanks for the feedback. I hereby amend my proposal.
(Technically, I am proposing and accepting an amendment. AIUI people
who already seconded my version can choose to withdraw their second,
but remain seconders by default. I have CC'd the seconders.)
After listening to what people have said so far, I think my paragraph
8 (about translations etc.) is too much of a can of worms. I think
this is probably best dealt with on a forum-by-forum basis by the
moderators. If anyone would prefer the version with paragraph 8,
please do say. If there whoa sufficient support, we could have both
on the ballot.
I've included scope for moderators to make exceptions. I take Sean's
point that this risks undermining a critical point - hence the "narrow
and tailored" wording. In practice with a resolution like this we
need to trust the moderators, CT, DAM, etc., to honour its spirit.
To my mind the intent is quine clear about the ethics, even if the
operative sections are more woolly.
Changes:
- Delete paragraph 8 ("may write in their native language").
- New paragraph 4a with a narrow exception-making power for
admins/mods.
- Write "Codes of Conduct" and "the relevant Code of Conduct".
- Fixed some typos found by ispell.
I have retained the paragraph numbering to help keep the discussion
clear. I hope the Secretary will be able to renumber them when the
time comes and the ballot options are final. Kurt, please LMK if
you'd prefer me to renumber them myself right away.
- -8<- BEGIN PROPOSAL
[ EDITORIAL NOTE FOR THE SECRETARY: When transposing this into an
actual ballot, please renumber paragraphs and delete this note. ]
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 and 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 CODES 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.
4a. Moderators and disciplinary teams may make narrow and tailored
exceptions to rule 4, and decide on interpretation.
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 relevant Code of Conduct and should result in swift and
proportionate disciplinary action.
- ->8- END PROPOSAL
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQJUBAEBCgA+FiEEQWOBFNEyiDslog3dR1FXV9gAJFYFAmpnb9YgHGlqYWNrc29u
QGNoaWFyay5ncmVlbmVuZC5vcmcudWsACgkQR1FXV9gAJFZEyBAAkJYDufPz+Uzl
FPJYcBw+iUcp5hUD0Ikq7gt2520tjUHoGty8WqKP6SAxHRjFhEqo4D9ghlGB6yLs
VZGG9GR4cZm4AA/26nup8FRYz219g15isqB3iw8ceZyFqqLT6eM4imMPu2J+6Tyn
VbdTad8bbUkIIonni8zoRgnr2j4UDhkwDsb05KlsZuu34JBBVP+QdGpBa012rm06
LsrK3zZsmwMdDZc+d7eAuG629IxbxyLvkXEGwN4MTxQukQZMR1kJazu3n8yVGW/B
t/J9OVmAyYJTAG/rZS901pBbdYupG1mQELh2e6K122ar+BLuUM5blOG8FWi+UgkG
FGczLlX6JjvTpwxZV6doZy+vUTaFDNyQqs9FsTwf2IA4LDOFooTjCxVaKQ/5Sdoh
0f0oN3u5LXxNz6VhrsN77rr2fuZPHgajUs6hjOxQupgH6DNPE5fePQPIEsA/r7vd
7K/8DdnGhKgW/3duWBzswNyUWheWS/fZIJLRJI3Nug48QFMJBhO30Ei28BE8JCHo
ET79t5fj+PLNdnTgve3VjdYxMCh1HfqBuCcHHJ773iN5PwV7w0cRULBpL6fSiFlL
iMmzTU5YRgbOqDKr/5y37yvJC8YXxoaDCwji2dZtke9gVE2U0J5JNqHtABWUbW0X
jXpK+Um8dvTmGyPeI+GUb2UQXi9GSS8=
=+uYQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Ian Jackson <[email protected]> These opinions are my own.
Pronouns: they/he. If I emailed you from @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk,
that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
