Hi, On Mon, 27 Jul 2026 18:57, Aigars Mahinovs <[email protected]> wrote:
That is up to you. Noone can force you to do any volunteer work. But if you state that you have time to review patches from one class of contributors, but not from another class of contributors, regardless of the technical content of those patches or their size or quantity, then why others can't do the same for other classes of contributors? Maybe never accepting any patches from people workign for a corporation? Or from people from USA?
if contributors externalize their low-level contributions on me in the little time I can find for my volunteer Debian work, that increasingly raises my desire to contribute elsewhere. I will just ignore such patches.
If a human contributor writes a bad patch (by hand), I can point it out to them, and tell them what they need to change. OTOH with LLM-generated content I might as well flip a coin until something passable comes out. Most people generating code like this can't even explain then what the code does, which is not surprising. Furthermore, LLMs then to write overly long code rather than concise, neat functions. While even todays models with context can be mostly correct on the code-aspect, they fail on (IMO) the most important aspect: social. LLMs can never know, or feel, or (properly) gauge the social context, and tend to censor topics that their authors thought to ban. E.g. if you ask DeepSeek about Tia'mnen Square, it will output that it does not know about it. The other models have similar issues.
Social interaction and context in code is a very important part in the free software community and Debian, and LLMs do not know and do not care about it.
That alone stands reason to not use them, not even mentioning the horrendous resource usage and the political agenda behind them.
best, -- Matthias Geiger <werdahias> Debian Developer -- KiCad Contributor GPG: ECBEDBB607B9B2BE
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
