Debian votes to let contributors code with AI

Incognion

Just saw this

https://www.theregister.com/ai-and-ml/2026/08/30/debian-votes-to-let-contributors-code-with-ai/5293421

network

The end is nigh.

Levi

This:

“The use of a generative AI tool does not diminish the contributor's responsibility for the work they submit. Contributors are expected to understand, review, test, and, where appropriate, modify AI-assisted output before incorporating it into Debian.”

Essentially it says "no matter how you create code, in final you are responsible for it". So devs ass can burn if shit gets pushed. Acceptable.

You can't simply deny LLM. It is here and it will stay for decades.

forest

I don't mind it. They allow responsible use of AI tools, which gives them enough leeway to prohibit slop.

There are some good comments on LWN: https://lwn.net/Articles/1091231/

jsg

Well the debian guys just confirmed my sig. I'd blacklist them anyway if I hadn't already for the poettering shitfuckery.

stable_genius

@forest said:
They allow responsible use of AI tools, which gives them enough leeway to prohibit slop.

They can prohibit as much as they want but..

can they enforce it?

@Levi said:
(...) "no matter how you create code, in final you are responsible for it". So devs ass can burn if shit gets pushed.

So they do like Pontius Pilate and say basically this: "We wash our hands of it"

shit will get pushed, make no mistake.

Time to pick a new distro.

meowwcc

@jsg said:
Well the debian guys just confirmed my sig. I'd blacklist them anyway if I hadn't already for the poettering shitfuckery.

You must be playing the long game my friend! You're in the majority now, but in a few years your views might be exotic!

Andreix

In the end, they can't tell if the code X dev wrote in vscode was enhanced by AI or not (or even 100% AI).

Levi

@stable_genius said:

@forest said:
They allow responsible use of AI tools, which gives them enough leeway to prohibit slop.

They can prohibit as much as they want but..

can they enforce it?

@Levi said:
(...) "no matter how you create code, in final you are responsible for it". So devs ass can burn if shit gets pushed.

So they do like Pontius Pilate and say basically this: "We wash our hands of it"

shit will get pushed, make no mistake.

Time to pick a new distro.

Debian is stability standard. “Another distro” doesn’t cut it. Ubuntu smells, arch missing in marketing and centos no more. Bsd - fck that, to complicated.

I’am with debian since 3.0, pounded here hard. It always endured. Servers died, but os spinned to the last second.

mhpteam

i always use debian for production-grade servers, and what are they doing here

jsg

@meowwcc said:

@jsg said:
Well the debian guys just confirmed my sig. I'd blacklist them anyway if I hadn't already for the poettering shitfuckery.

You must be playing the long game my friend! You're in the majority now, but in a few years your views might be exotic!

I do not care about what the majority "thinks" or what's considered exotic etc., at all.

Void

AI bad, hooman good (2026)
Computer bad, hooman good(1980)
Tractors bad, horses good(1950)

navneetkk

I am not sure why people hate it when most software guys use AI for most of their coding sessions. Things have changed rapidly(a lot) in last 4-5 months and skipping it would be a big mistake 😄

emiraykoz

AI assistance and vibecoding are completely different levels.

This is good, and if you think otherwise you're living under a rock and will be left behind.

stable_genius

@Levi said:

@stable_genius said:

@forest said:
They allow responsible use of AI tools, which gives them enough leeway to prohibit slop.

They can prohibit as much as they want but..

can they enforce it?

@Levi said:
(...) "no matter how you create code, in final you are responsible for it". So devs ass can burn if shit gets pushed.

So they do like Pontius Pilate and say basically this: "We wash our hands of it"

shit will get pushed, make no mistake.

Time to pick a new distro.

Debian is stability standard. “Another distro” doesn’t cut it. Ubuntu smells, arch missing in marketing and centos no more. Bsd - fck that, to complicated.

I’am with debian since 3.0, pounded here hard. It always endured. Servers died, but os spinned to the last second.

I think AlmaLinux cuts it. In fact I think it may cut it even better than Debian does. A lot better!!

AlmaLinux may not support low end hardware as well as Debian does because it is derived form RHEL and only x86_64-v3 is supported there, many LET providers still use non v3 hardware.

However, AlmaLinux does offer x86_64-v2 versions designed for older hardware and that should work on most LET providers. The v2 versions allow continued security updates for legacy systems but may have limitations with third-party packages which may have been built for v3.

I'm experimenting with AlmaLinux, I think it can play nicely with most LET providers.

WebProject

I like Debian and lately AlmaLinux tick all the boxes

jsg

@stable_genius said:

@Levi said:

@stable_genius said:

@forest said:
They allow responsible use of AI tools, which gives them enough leeway to prohibit slop.

They can prohibit as much as they want but..

can they enforce it?

@Levi said:
(...) "no matter how you create code, in final you are responsible for it". So devs ass can burn if shit gets pushed.

So they do like Pontius Pilate and say basically this: "We wash our hands of it"

shit will get pushed, make no mistake.

Time to pick a new distro.

Debian is stability standard. “Another distro” doesn’t cut it. Ubuntu smells, arch missing in marketing and centos no more. Bsd - fck that, to complicated.

I’am with debian since 3.0, pounded here hard. It always endured. Servers died, but os spinned to the last second.

I think AlmaLinux cuts it. In fact I think it may cut it even better than Debian does. A lot better!!

AlmaLinux may not support low end hardware as well as Debian does because it is derived form RHEL and only x86_64-v3 is supported there, many LET providers still use non v3 hardware.

However, AlmaLinux does offer x86_64-v2 versions designed for older hardware and that should work on most LET providers. The v2 versions allow continued security updates for legacy systems but may have limitations with third-party packages which may have been built for v3.

I'm experimenting with AlmaLinux, I think it can play nicely with most LET providers.

For me it's Alpine, one main reason being that I think that lots of the linux distro bloat shouldn't be on a node anyway. Debian highly likely was good once but they've demonstrated more than clearly how they tick (woke and weird) when they fell for the systemd cancer and frankly, I'm not even surprised that now they also joined the ai cult.

stable_genius

@jsg said:

@stable_genius said:

@Levi said:

@stable_genius said:

@forest said:
They allow responsible use of AI tools, which gives them enough leeway to prohibit slop.

They can prohibit as much as they want but..

can they enforce it?

@Levi said:
(...) "no matter how you create code, in final you are responsible for it". So devs ass can burn if shit gets pushed.

So they do like Pontius Pilate and say basically this: "We wash our hands of it"

shit will get pushed, make no mistake.

Time to pick a new distro.

Debian is stability standard. “Another distro” doesn’t cut it. Ubuntu smells, arch missing in marketing and centos no more. Bsd - fck that, to complicated.

I’am with debian since 3.0, pounded here hard. It always endured. Servers died, but os spinned to the last second.

I think AlmaLinux cuts it. In fact I think it may cut it even better than Debian does. A lot better!!

AlmaLinux may not support low end hardware as well as Debian does because it is derived form RHEL and only x86_64-v3 is supported there, many LET providers still use non v3 hardware.

However, AlmaLinux does offer x86_64-v2 versions designed for older hardware and that should work on most LET providers. The v2 versions allow continued security updates for legacy systems but may have limitations with third-party packages which may have been built for v3.

I'm experimenting with AlmaLinux, I think it can play nicely with most LET providers.

For me it's Alpine, one main reason being that I think that lots of the linux distro bloat shouldn't be on a node anyway. Debian highly likely was good once but they've demonstrated more than clearly how they tick (woke and weird) when they fell for the systemd cancer and frankly, I'm not even surprised that now they also joined the ai cult.

I've been relying on a mix of Debian and Alpine but from now on I'll be jailing Debian.

So for me it will be a mix of AlmaLinux + Alpine + Jailed Debian

The end of an era I guess, however getting rid of Debian will take a very long while.

forest

@jsg said: I'm not even surprised that now they also joined the ai cult.

They didn't join the AI cult. The results of the votes and discussions show that they're still extremely skeptical about AI. Their decision was essentially just that contributions are to be judged on their own merit, meaning vibe-coded slop will be rejected. If someone doesn't deeply understand the patch they're proposing, it'll be rejected.

MannDude

@Levi said:
This:

“The use of a generative AI tool does not diminish the contributor's responsibility for the work they submit. Contributors are expected to understand, review, test, and, where appropriate, modify AI-assisted output before incorporating it into Debian.”

Essentially it says "no matter how you create code, in final you are responsible for it". So devs ass can burn if shit gets pushed. Acceptable.

You can't simply deny LLM. It is here and it will stay for decades.

This.

Plus, I'd want any distro to be thoroughly pentested with AI assistance to find vulnerabilities before releases as well.

I'm not so sure why we're having AI find critical vulns left undiscovered for a decade in code, but many will argue you shouldn't use the same AI to build or secure that code.

FlawlessNode

@Void said:
AI bad, hooman good (2026)
Computer bad, hooman good(1980)
Tractors bad, horses good(1950)

Textile machines bad, child labor good (1810)

rm_

Yeah whatever, AI is useful, just look through the results and it's all fine.

PuDLeZ

A skilled person using AI as a tool to assist = good
Unskilled person using AI to vibe everything = you already see/know the results

jsg

@MannDude said:

@Levi said:
This:

“The use of a generative AI tool does not diminish the contributor's responsibility for the work they submit. Contributors are expected to understand, review, test, and, where appropriate, modify AI-assisted output before incorporating it into Debian.”

Essentially it says "no matter how you create code, in final you are responsible for it". So devs ass can burn if shit gets pushed. Acceptable.

You can't simply deny LLM. It is here and it will stay for decades.

This.

Plus, I'd want any distro to be thoroughly pentested with AI assistance to find vulnerabilities before releases as well.

I'm not so sure why we're having AI find critical vulns left undiscovered for a decade in code, but many will argue you shouldn't use the same AI to build or secure that code.

Different tasks and very different mind sets! One ideal for computing, the other one not at all.

@FlawlessNode said:

@Void said:
AI bad, hooman good (2026)
Computer bad, hooman good(1980)
Tractors bad, horses good(1950)

Textile machines bad, child labor good (1810)

Nope. My line is not "I like the old way, I hate the new way"!
All others "were good" because they were helping/supporting while us (mostly *g) being in control - except for ai which is mimicking us or, worse, replacing or even sooner or later killing us.
Gladly though it needs so much valuable resources that "agi" will not be achieved, and today's ai bubble will burst (but SLMs - as opposed to LLMs - might continue to "evolve" and survive).
Btw, how is quantum computing doing? *g

@rm_ said:
Yeah whatever, AI is useful, just look through the results and it's all fine.

As if ... plus, yeah sure, trust something that's known to hallucinate and to lie.

LEBUserJoe

@Levi said:

@stable_genius said:

@forest said:
They allow responsible use of AI tools, which gives them enough leeway to prohibit slop.

They can prohibit as much as they want but..

can they enforce it?

@Levi said:
(...) "no matter how you create code, in final you are responsible for it". So devs ass can burn if shit gets pushed.

So they do like Pontius Pilate and say basically this: "We wash our hands of it"

shit will get pushed, make no mistake.

Time to pick a new distro.

Debian is stability standard. “Another distro” doesn’t cut it. Ubuntu smells, arch missing in marketing and centos no more. Bsd - fck that, to complicated.

I’am with debian since 3.0, pounded here hard. It always endured. Servers died, but os spinned to the last second.

Ubuntu smells? rude. Ubuntu on all my machines.

forest

@jsg said: Btw, how is quantum computing doing? *g

Improving at an unsettling pace to the point that I'm trying to cover my ears and convince myself that Gutmann has a point.

LEBUserJoe

@MannDude said:

@Levi said:
This:

“The use of a generative AI tool does not diminish the contributor's responsibility for the work they submit. Contributors are expected to understand, review, test, and, where appropriate, modify AI-assisted output before incorporating it into Debian.”

Essentially it says "no matter how you create code, in final you are responsible for it". So devs ass can burn if shit gets pushed. Acceptable.

You can't simply deny LLM. It is here and it will stay for decades.

This.

Plus, I'd want any distro to be thoroughly pentested with AI assistance to find vulnerabilities before releases as well.

I'm not so sure why we're having AI find critical vulns left undiscovered for a decade in code, but many will argue you shouldn't use the same AI to build or secure that code.

Simple as someone who has claimed over 10 bounty's from various programs, LLM's are used because humans rely to much on luck, or the obvious. When bug / exploit hunting you rely on your starting point to take you to the end. Humans aren't great at consuming 100's of thousands of lines to find the 1 particular issue. We are creatures of habbit we go to what we feel is obvious, or leads to something over and over.

An LLM will score the entire codebase, check 100's of packages and 100's of thousands of lines. Honestly i'm surprised there has not been more CSVE's and I suspect this is mainly due to the limitations of truly good hunting models being limited from public use currently.

jsg

@forest said:

@jsg said: Btw, how is quantum computing doing? *g

Improving at an unsettling pace to the point that I'm trying to cover my ears and convince myself that Gutmann has a point.

*g

forest

@jsg said:

@forest said:

@jsg said: Btw, how is quantum computing doing? *g

Improving at an unsettling pace to the point that I'm trying to cover my ears and convince myself that Gutmann has a point.

*g

I don't know what *g means.

forest

@LEBUserJoe said: suspect this is mainly due to the limitations of truly good hunting models being limited from public use currently.

But now that Kimi K3 is out...

zed

its fun to rage about ai but the hammer doesn't make the carpenter, stop being silly.