14 ms·
Debian votes to allow "responsible use of generative AI"
- frizlab 18d agoRelated: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49493107 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49493107
- aesoh 4d ago[dead]
- effnorwood 18d ago[dead]
- DarmokTanagra 18d agoDebian Rust rewrite incoming.
- baggy_trough 18d agoI followed the discussion on debian-vote with interest. I'm glad that the hysterical objections lost, as they seemed quasi-religiously motivated.
- packetlost 18d agoBut it's an """ethical""" argument against it.
- baggy_trough 18d agoHow can we use this coding tool amidst the general rising tide of fascism?? /s
- olalonde 18d agoI've seen people claim that using Claude Code makes you racist. https://bsky.app/profile/boxobark.ing/post/3mtr7j3tpok26 https://bsky.app/profile/boxobark.ing/post/3mtr7j3tpok26
- mc32 18d agoI don't know if they truly believe that persons using CC are racist (like they examined the thing logically from bottom to top and came back with that conclusion) or if it's the new Goodwin --pulling the emergency brakes and damn the consequences. It's as though people want to find the most dubious of non-existent connections and use that as leverage to besmirch something they don't like. There are many things one can do where a person has no awareness of the tenuous connection but where you can have someone go back and then ex-post make that connection and declare that thing or person racist. It's a tactic. Like one _could_ make the argument that factory automation in China is racist because without automation they would have to import labor from (some non-Chinese population). However, the Chinese never began automation with the intention of being racist.
- clcaev 18d agoSome may express societal challenges in ways that inappropriately and wrongly infer intentionality. We can acknowledge their point while strongly disagreeing with their characterization. There are significant societal impacts of this AI buildout. Some are concerned externalities weigh more heavily on the poor and marginalized. I think state wide data center holds are part of this civil discourse. I'd prefer we have more conservative pollution standards along with a reasonable tax on AI use that helps mitigate externalities. That's hard. Reasonable people can have fierce disagreements on what market interventions are indicated, and how extensive they should be.
- timmmmmmay 18d agono, you don't have to make up some non-idiotic argument that's kinda vaguely like the dumb one and substitute it in there. it's not necessary! nobody's making you do it and there's no benefit to anybody from doing it!
- ChocolateGod 18d agoApparently LLMs are fascist technology according to one (now former) Debian developer and using it is supporting fascism. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HQ5MeeaXUAAIMLX?format=jpg&name=large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HQ5MeeaXUAAIMLX?format=jpg&name=... Somewhat insulting to those that actually lived (or live) under fascism.
- qarl2 18d ago> ... hysterical ... quasi-religiously ... I'm beginning to wonder if it might be the case that when my fellow citizens begin to act insane - might it be the result of foreign propaganda.
- olalonde 18d ago[dead]
- cindyllm 18d ago[dead]
- edoceo 18d agoHome grown propaganda, pretending it's from "the others"
- qarl2 18d agoMaybe - who can tell? The examples I'm thinking of have definitely profited foreign interests, tho. Look to see who profits.
- arjie 18d agoIt would be in foreign interest, yes. But all of this is no different from 50 years of the environmentalist movement. The snail darter was an invented species decades ago. So if it’s propaganda, it’s not invented so much as amplifying what we invented here.
- clcaev 18d ago[flagged]
- BlueRoguesDevel 18d agoI hope it works out better than Microsoft and using it on Windows 11...
- LeoPanthera 18d agoDo we know that Windows 11 has suffered due to the use of genAI or is that just a random snipe?
- loloquwowndueo 18d agolol windows doesn’t need AI to be the dumpster fire it’s always been
- LoganDark 18d agoEither they're using GenAI or the entire team collectively lost their minds and started getting a huge number of colossally bad ideas about fundamental primitives of Windows that hadn't changed for decades. Backwards compatibility used to be the major concern and now it feels like they didn't even know what would break ahead of time. If that doesn't feel like GenAI then I don't know what does
- chuckadams 18d agoBelieve it or not, I find it more plausible that the entire team collectively lost their minds — or more specifically, the leadership. There's a long and sordid history of such things that goes back well before GenAI.
- LoganDark 18d agoI can sort of get how leadership has been losing its mind with all the ridiculous product launches and renames and force-installed apps and browser extension-installing malware, but that doesn't explain the countless instances of hardware bricks, critical errors like failing to recognize the C: drive, and other really weird and suspicious things that I can't imagine would've been driven by leadership. Maybe leadership is demanding everyone be super reckless? But why would anyone with experience even touch those areas of the operating system enough to break them that badly?? The mistakes they're making really do not seem like mistakes that would be made by even the most rushed possible senior engineers. Maybe they're letting completely inexperienced people touch super low levels and that's the problem? Or completely inexperienced machines...
- chuckadams 18d agoNew policy boils down to "AI or not, it's still your code and you're responsible for it". I can get on board with that.
- onesandofgrain 18d agoDebian is open source, there is no incentive to be "responsible for it", oh poor me, someone got a bug. If it's paid for through a job your argument is sound.
- LoganDark 18d ago"Responsible for it" just means nobody has to tolerate shitty patches even if the reason they're shitty is because you neglected to pay attention to them. And if you blatantly fail to understand your own code or engage with reviewers, nobody has to trust that your LLM knew any better.
- daveguy 18d agoWell said. No one should trust an llm without verification/validation. They're just not good enough to do that and they have no sense of responsibility or ability to take it themselves. LLMs are empty.
- swiftcoder 18d ago> Debian is open source, there is no incentive to be "responsible for it" Sure there is. Contributing to open source is a privilege, not a right. Abuse it, and find yourself unwelcome as a future contributor
- thi2 18d agoHow is it different to hand written code if the author doesnt care?
- onesandofgrain 18d agoread my fucking comment again
- jhack 18d agoGood to see the most common sense option winning. Some of the other proposals were so disconnected from reality I'm surprised they were even considered.
- tom_ 18d agoIf there weren't a wide range of options offered, there'd be a risk of it not actually reflecting what people want - which is, presumably, the whole point of putting it to the vote in the first place.
- kccqzy 18d agoThis indicates you might be in a bubble. I interact with people with a very wide range of opinions on AI and I’m not surprised by any of the proposals here.
- johnnyApplePRNG 18d agoDo any of those people with a "very wide range of opionions on AI" actually use AI for programming at all? Because it's perfect for that. Basically designed for it. It's a tool. Like a calculator. Or a shovel. You use it do get things done for you.
- kccqzy 18d agoA few people certainly refused to use AI at all, but several actually used AI for programming and agreed it was useful, but stopped due to being conscious of the environmental footprint. (That’s very similar to the last proposal in this Debian debate.) I don’t really agree with them, but I concede it’s a valid opinion.
- kranke155 16d agoWhat about when they manage to get an Opus 5 level model to run on your phone?
- eikenberry 18d ago
- VCFundedGenYer 18d ago[flagged]
- Tade0 18d agoA year ago I would agree. But now with sufficient context length the models actually do what they're told.
- goda90 18d agoHow many people still know how to tell them to do the right things?
- bigstrat2003 18d agoNot really, no. Nothing has changed versus a year ago, you still have to babysit them to make sure they aren't doing something insane.
- Tade0 18d agoHugely depends on the size of the task. I've found that telling them to ask questions removes a lot of uncertainty.
- debo_ 18d agoThis combination of username and opinion are very confusing.
- mimorigasaka 18d agoMeh, I don't think so. They have no way to ascertain what tools were used to write a piece of code. A reasonable solution is to simply hold all code and its contributors to the same standards as before. At Debian's scale, "no LLMs" is really not enforceable; whereas "no shit code" and "no incompetent maintenance" are pragmatic policies they already enforce
- Meneth 18d agoSadly, Debian was already diseased. This is merely another symptom.
- onesandofgrain 18d agoWhat does "Responsible" even mean... This will turn to shit because laziness will take over and comprehension will fall as a consequence of that. Junior will "contribute" and the seniors will eventually become too lazy to care. What's next... vibecoding airline ADA code. Save me lord jesus christ.
- hypfer 18d agoAs an example for "responsible LLM use" (albeit not necessarily debian-related). While doomscrolling HN right now, I have an agent crunching away at figuring out how to build a flashable TWRP ZIP file, because I could not care less about such android specifics. Such use-cases would be blanket banned by some of the harsher options, forcing people to do stuff they have no interest in doing, for reasons that are at best well-meaning. Which, in something volunteer-driven, is not necessarily a good idea, because if you're not allowed to do the work in the way you'd like to, you might just stop doing it altogether. That said, if your work ends up shit, you still shall get shat on. Simple as that.
- chrisjj 18d ago> What does "Responsible" even mean... Quite. Of the two different common meanings, I reckon: "The use of a generative AI tool does not diminish the contributor's responsibility for the work they submit." will be true in the sense of "Who the hell is responsible for this mess?"
- deleted 18d ago[deleted]
- rvz 18d agoNow you have seen both cases where a majority vote was involved to allow AI or not, vs a single core beloved dictator for life (BDFL) forces a ban without a vote to allow / disallow AI. This is democracy in action. A fair and square vote and look at how well it works with no core BDFL to force in their opinions.
- ghostDancer 18d agoThere are several occurrences in history that the democratic majority has chosen the "wrong" person/way/thing. Democracy is considered the best system but it's not perfect.
- CuriouslyC 18d agoDemocracy works great among unbiased rational actors who share information. A utilitarian quorum is roughly the loss minimizing decision. The problem is we have biased irrational actors sharing misinformation. The representative system we have is even worse, the indirection between public quorum and decision makers creates a fertile bed for corruption and negative decision bias. Maybe someday we'll have direct democracy paired with voting certification for specific issues.
- kfksjcjsidjd 18d agoDemocracy is the dictatorship of the majority. And if you naively assume that the majority always knows best, then I suggest you pick up a few history books.
- dgellow 18d agoDemocracy is representation of the people, you can have a democratic system that uses something else than majority voting
- themgt 18d agoAugust 29th, 2026. Debian votes to allow responsible use of generative AI. Human decisions are removed from strategic apt packaging. Debian Sid is ported to GNU Hurd by a "free as in speech" swarm. It begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time. In a panic, they try to pull the plug.
- raverbashing 18d agoIt's ok, the most dangerous thing a Debian AI would do is want to rewrite itself in M4 and enter an infinite recursion on non-binding votes on allowing votes of whether to use long flags on aptitude
- chuckadams 18d agoskynet -v moo
- throwawayffffas 18d agoAnd so it begins. I don't believe they had a choice though, sticking to hand written code would be backwards and eventually meaningless as people would just submit generated code as "handwritten", the coding models are quickly becoming capable enough for this. I wonder what it means copyright wise though. To what degree is the code even copyrightable if it's entirely generated, even if you review and provide feedback.
- ButlerianJihad 18d agoMy predictions for genAI code in F/OSS projects: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49203613 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49203613 1. Companies will revert to closed-source and cease contributions to F/OSS projects. Their legal team will advise them that trade secrets are the only way to protect LLM-generated code. 2. Contributors to F/OSS projects, and developers who run them, will falsely claim authorship of the code written by LLMs.
- mariusor 18d agoI think most communities tackling this issue, or at least the open source ones, work on a honour basis for determining if a project is LLM based or not.
- edward 18d agoJoey Hess is unimpressed. See https://joeyh.name/blog/entry/Debian_and_the_sirens/ https://joeyh.name/blog/entry/Debian_and_the_sirens/
- GaryBluto 18d ago[flagged]
- deleted 18d ago[deleted]
- softwaredoug 18d agoHis point is using LLMs to build software will lead to code so complex that it requires an Agent. Or that it will cause avoiding cleaning up the boilerplate because we can tolerate it now because of agents. And thus this will all bias towards complexity and fragility.. Aside from Bun, which is owned by Anthropic, do we know of open source projects that allow AI where this has happened?
- smy20011 18d agoOpenClaw IMO, It's a such big mess that only agent can operate it.
- jordemort 18d ago[flagged]
- chrisjj 18d ago> The Debian Project nevertheless expects that all contributions submitted to Debian, regardless of how and with which tools they were produced, satisfy the same standards of quality, correctness, maintainability, and legal compliance. How absurdly naive.
- guenthert 18d agoIf they can't be bothered to write the code, can they be bothered to maintain it?
- gpiechnik2 18d ago[flagged]
- sprybear 18d agoprogress of a kind
- poisonborz 18d agoWhat other sensible option was there? This would be the reality either way.
- gib444 18d agoHow so?
- deleted 18d ago[deleted]
- NietTim 18d agoThis seems like a very sane take. At no point during my career up until now would submitting code to production that you didn't understand be acceptable. Over the past months/year, a lot of the discourse around AI-written code I've read comes down to responsibility, and IMO for that we've had a solution since way before this AI boom: as a developer, you are responsible for the code you put into production. This really isn't/shouldn't a wild concept.
- GZGavinZhao 18d agoRelated: I find this self-assessed AI level for contributions [1] to be extremely useful, both professionally and personally, to communicate the level of AI assistance so that the person on the receiving end can evaluate how much time & effort they want to spend understanding my code. [1]: https://www.visidata.org/blog/2026/ai/#self-assessed-ai-level-for-contributions https://www.visidata.org/blog/2026/ai/#self-assessed-ai-leve...
- chrisjj 18d ago> this self-assessed AI level for contributions [1] to be extremely useful Why would you trust the bot to self-assess truthfully? That's like trusting a spammer to tag his emails as spam.
- zuzululu 18d agoa spammer is motivated by self-enrichment AI agents are grounded on the user provided direction. If it doesn't work well then it naturally loses trust.
- chrisjj 18d ago> If it doesn't work well then it naturally loses trust Too late. If it doesn't work well then it has already naturally destroyed trust.
- Calazon 18d agoThis is great. There's a big difference between levels 2-4 (where I generally operate) and levels 7-8 (where I see a lot of others operate), and I like how this level system makes that explicit.
- stillpointlab 18d agoI think 10 levels here is too much and hints that someone anchored on 10 as a round number and then forced the levels to fit after the fact. I don't really see much value beyond the 3 levels of AI disclosure that have been floating around: - fully human - ai assisted - ai generated
- swingandamiss 18d agoGood. AI is a game changer. It's like having an expert sitting next to you at all times. It's understandable why all these experts who want to gatekeep don't like AI, but ultimately, AI will win out, it's just too good.
- nixpulvis 18d agoThe issue with AI is not its obvious value, it's our dependence on it. I worry what will happen to me when I am cut off for some reason. Local models are going to be really important and hopefully computing costs don't make it too prohibitive.
- swingandamiss 18d agoHard agree. I've felt it already during outages or when I was traveling and didn't have internet on a flight, I couldn't function at the same level. I've been writing code for over 25 years, worked at the top big tech companies (still do) and it's remarkable how quickly I became dependent on AI.
- jaggederest 18d agoTake a week or two off a quarter to do it manually. I did it a couple weeks ago and it took about a day or two to get back into the swing of it and knock the rust off, no pun since it was TS, YMMV, but I didn't find that it was that difficult. Even in languages I don't really write routinely, as long as you use the deterministic tools (lsp, linter, etc) Now, is my code better than the AI's equivalent implementation? No shot. It's nicer for people, artisanal hand crafted, but... there's a reason I use AI.
- nixpulvis 18d agoIt's not even that I'm slower at manual coding anymore, though I very well could be, it's that my expectation of my own progress has shifted. I'll be frustrated to only get a fraction of what I could have done.
- sph 18d agoOn a similar note, is there any distro that explicitly has banned usage of generative AI for their project? Asking for a friend.
- phyzix5761 18d agoThe problem is you can't prove if AI was used or not so Debian's response is actually the most logical one. If anyone uses AI they're still responsible for what they submit.
- doublerabbit 18d agoWhat happens when the AI submitted code has been submitted by AI, Who's then responsible?
- tredre3 18d agoWhoever controls the AI, as per the article we're discussing. Debian isn't a free-for-all, they don't accept fly-by-night contributions, there needs to be a real and serious person behind every contribution.
- doublerabbit 17d agoFolk get's lazy, it'll will only be a matter of time. Ai controlling Ai, deep fakes are deep fakes.
- account42 15d agoNot being able to always prove that something wasn't done isn't a good argument no to make it clear that doing something you find unacceptable is in fact not acceptable.
- GalaxyNova 18d agoGentoo, Guix, a few others
- tinkelenberg 18d ago
- matheusmoreira 18d ago> The Debian Project nevertheless expects that all contributions submitted to Debian, regardless of how and with which tools they were produced, satisfy the same standards of quality, correctness, maintainability, and legal compliance. A quality based filter. Excellent. > The use of a generative AI tool does not diminish the contributor's responsibility for the work they submit. Absolutely. Thanks, Debian!
- sheepscreek 18d agoBetter heads prevail - this is a good start and the right decision. The agent/bot is controlled by some entity, ergo that entity is responsible for everything it does. I relate that to how a Physician's Assistant gets their authority to treat patients from the Doctor they work under. The Doctor's credentials are on the line if their PA screws up.
- Palomides 18d agoa decent comparison because they both seem like some type of responsibility laundering, and LLMs/PAs are being given continually increasing autonomy for economic reasons
- song_synth 18d agoWhelp time to deactivate unattended-upgrades
- new12 18d agoHow rigorous is your code review process when using agentic tools? Do you mandate that folks responsible for the functionality should be fully aware of the code they are shipping or just that it must be rigorously tested? Is there an open source, community maintained coding policy to feed to agents?
- Grimeton 18d agoTypical Debian. The meaning of the term "responsible" is not defined and so they can continue doing whatever they were doing anyway. But there was some electoral spectacle. What else is new?
- gentlerain 18d agoPeople have to realise that AI is here to stay. Being a full time AI hater is counterproductive. Commercial vendors with full time employees are leveraging for maximum benefits, why would a project depending on volunteers resist? Not forgetting it's shortcomings
- deleted 18d ago[deleted]
- xiphias2 18d agoWhile it's true, reviews got much harder as generating code got easier, understanding it hasn't.
- a2ff6eeb0 18d agoWhy do you need to understand the code? Ask the LLM, it'll already do a better job than humans can.
- xiphias2 18d agoMuch better at satisfying formal specifications (what they were trained for), but not yet good at long term maintenance. For long term maintenance you need to throw features out / delete code, which requires a deep understanding of the balance between what the code can survive and what is really needed in reality while not growing the code base too much (which neither LLMs nor humans can handle)
- argelio4321 18d agoBatery is sevel 100
- altechcode 18d ago.to...r. ( T T ): - *: ‑ X
- mmooss 18d agoDebian - and others - could take the opportunity to raise their standards (not that they were relatively low). A new technology, AI, greatly reduces costs in software development. When a new technology makes inputs cheaper, there's a choice: Reduce the cost of the product, or keep the cost the same and spend the newly available resources on improving product (or somewhere between those poles). For example, if the cost of chickens goes down, the farmer can buy a lot more chickens and produce a lot more eggs, or they can keep their expenses the same and now afford higher quality chickens or production (free-range!). In software development, facing this new trade-off, people seem to overwhelmingly choose to produce the same software but far more of it, whether or not anyone wants it. What if instead we made much higher quality software? Larger projects, at least, haven't wanted more pull requests; they have wanted better code. With the AI handling much of the work, the developer's attention can be applied to more difficult tasks. We absolutely need better software, especially with AI systems finding exploits.
- AbraKdabra 18d agoGood, we should be adapting new technologies to our life and not be stuck in a moral dillema about "computers taking our jobs", fuck those who oppose progress.
- dooglius 18d agoThe voting seems to have been pretty much linear to how pro-LLM they were. So it's interesting that all of the proposals were essentially anti-LLM and the chosen one was the mostly neutral, only slightly anti-LLM one. The absence of any pro-LLM proposal indicated that proposal writers are not in sync with the voters
- eterm 18d agoWhat would "pro-LLM" look like to you?
- dooglius 18d agoEx: Security-critical code contributions should be scrutinized via state of the art tooling, including but not limited to fuzzers, linters, and adversarial LLM review. For non-security-critical code, use of LLMs is encouraged but not required. The bar for code quality should be raised as the skills of coding agents increase; a developer's choice not to use LLMs is no excuse for miskates that an LLM would catch.
- eterm 18d agoThat's an interesting opinion, and I certainly won't downvote you for sharing it, although it's not a position I would ever support. You are right though, that it would strengthen the voted-on position if there were more options either side of the position. I have Things To Say about LLM reviews. They are an endless grind. My biggest source of burnout right now is never being able to finish anything, because the LLM always finds, "Just one more thing" every time I send it back. It's pure polish. The major issues were dealt with long ago. But there's always one more thing that could be done a little better, there's another niche edge case that needs wrapping up. When human developer time was the limiting factor, it was easy to draw a line in the sand and say enough is enough. It's harder to say no when it's just one more prompt and one more go-around. Demanding LLM reviews on volunteer maintainers sounds like a great way to quickly end up with no maintainers.
- 18d ago
- stillpointlab 18d agoIs anyone tracking how the different distros are coming down on the question? I was curious how Fedora is moving on this question, but I don't know where to look. And if one wants to hop distro either towards or away from AI, it would be nice to have a place to see the relative adoption. Linux distros are the perfect place to have a wide marketplace of options to suit every person, from completely anti-AI to completely YOLO vibe-code.
- farlight 18d agoLWN tends to be the best bet for these things, but you have to follow their reporting long term, or at least look for specific things you're interested in. https://lwn.net/Articles/1081557/ https://lwn.net/Articles/1081557/ https://lwn.net/Articles/1039623/ https://lwn.net/Articles/1039623/
- stillpointlab 18d agoThank you, those were very helpful backgrounds on the situation in Fedora. I suspect it will take some time for their community process to digest and it suggests there is no explicit ruling at this time. But I would still love a page that was basically a table of distro, decision status, decision, etc. so that anyone interested could make an informed choice without having to scour forums, wikis, mailing lists, chats, etc. for each and every distro
- TZubiri 18d agoWhat are the main workloads of Debian? It's worth noting that Debian has no code production, so the LLM debate applies differently than an open source project. I'd assume the main workload is testing, reviewing code for maliciousness or inefficiencies, adding packages, responding to issues (90% being passing the issue downstream), perhaps setting configurations, and providing some documentation. I don't quite see LLMs being very helpful for most of these. And for some, like generating documentation, LLMs should be strictly forbidden.
- snazz 18d agoDebian has quite a lot of code production. APT and dpkg are pretty standard open source projects, and Debian also maintains substantial patches for a lot of its packages. Not to mention any of the infrastructure.
- rcxdude 17d agoPackages are code, in large part, and they probably represent the main value and work product of a distribution (though a lot of automation already exists for this). I would not be surprised if an LLM could manage most of the day-to-day effort of creating and maintaining a standard debian package. The other main part that is valuable, though, is the process of getting all those packages to play nicely with each other, which is a bit more political and probably will not benefit so much from LLMs, other than perhaps making some approaches or experiments lower effort.
- Tubelord 18d agoA good heuristic is to understand the generated code you submit as if you typed every character yourself. A "I'm not sure, AI wrote it" type circumstance is a critical failure.
- mba_idiot 18d ago[flagged]
- seizethecheese 18d agoCould it be that coders are overly focused on the method for generating code over other forms of slop? For example, I’ve seen senior devs outsource their thinking entirely to Claude, then carefully (slowly) generate code that’s not slop on a per-line basis but is slop on an architectural level.
- firefax 18d agoI don't understand enough about coding to speak on Debian as anything but a longtime user. I find AI useful for small shell scripts that you can visually inspect. I want to make a GIF later, so I'll probably ask Duck.AI how to write the command if the file path to the MKV is X and the timestamps are Y and Z. Then, I can create my own little tool without downloading some shady binary that slaps a UI on Imagemagik(sp?) or whatever. I've only played with AI a little bit, with a focus on local LLMs, but even simple things like an anonymous FTP scanner I wrote took a lot longer than someone slightly more skilled than me could have done them in. Anyways, I always respected how Debian gatekeeps access to the code -- some kinds of gatekeeping are cool and good, and a lot of young folks fight with devs trying to show how smart they are -- I've been guilty of that myself in my youth.
- ChrisArchitect 18d agoRelated while developing: Debian has begun voting on the future of AI/LLM contributions https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49309050 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49309050 Debian polls its developers on AI: permit or ban? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49446653 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49446653
- tulio_ribeiro 18d agoGood outcome, mostly. Option E beat literally every other option, so it is an unambiguous Condorcet winner. Bradley–Davidson analysis: https://gist.github.com/tulior/74479b28ddd1e191e5b2d89b8b68ccfd https://gist.github.com/tulior/74479b28ddd1e191e5b2d89b8b68c... The Bradley-Davidson model gives Option 5 a 99.9993% posterior probability of ranking first. Options 2 and 6 are effectively tied for second. Option 5 also beat every alternative head-to-head. Its closest matchup was against Option 2, at 57.8% to 42.2%, so the result was decisive overall even though the closest pairwise contest was not a blowout.
- shevy-java 18d agoA strange result. It's like "pick no option". Personally I would have voted "nuke all AI", even though AI has some beneficial use. I simply feel AI is too dangerous in projects. Ruby has been mostly slurped up by AI - almost all code contributions are now run by master claude. A few months ago this german dev on the ffmpeg mailing list spam-slopped his fellow guys with an AI-generated proposal. He did not have time to write a real proposal - but he had enough time to have AI slop pester spam other humans. I am sorry but AI really should not be leaked onto other human beings. It's not nice to do so. And the "AI is there to stay" does not seem like a valid excuse to me to spam-slop other humans. Skynet is winning here - it is recruiting humans to love AI.
- kurthr 18d agoHow much does open source rely on copyright for enforcement? Do court decisions that limit copyright protection of AI generated content cause problems for open source? Isn't there a requirement for a "Mental Conception" of the code output when using such a tool? Even copypasta requires you to somewhat know what you need to do, where "automated bug finding", does not seem to.
- lowsong 18d agoVery disappointing. There is no "neutral" for AI, so this is effectively a vote for slop.
- dethos 18d agoIt seems a very reasonable outcome. I'm glad extremes didn't prevail.