I’d assume that this deals with stuff that the Debian project maintains itself, like the package files. Like, it doesn’t mean that they won’t package code that has been written using AI.
We will not allow direct contributions to Debian written with the use or assistance of large language models (LLMs) or other generative AI tools. Direct contributions are defined as packaging, native Debian software like lintian, documentation and translations written by Debian contributors, and official Debian web resources, etc. Other categories such as upstream projects written with LLM assistance may be included at a later date. This ensures that Debian remains a stable, trusted, and reliable operating system, and protects the interests of the Debian volunteers who make it possible.
“may be included at a later date” so it isn’t in the proposal right now. nice way to be dishonest, instead of just admitting that you were wrong. Because this is in Proposal A:
It does not include:
Upstream projects using LLMs for development
AI-related software
Upstream patches/security fixes etc.
Also whining about downvotes is such a pathetic look. You deserve them for lying.
Regardless, they have no control over upstream packages. Are they going to move away from the linux kernel 100%?
I’d assume that this deals with stuff that the Debian project maintains itself, like the package files. Like, it doesn’t mean that they won’t package code that has been written using AI.
They’re definitely going to be building it from source and delivering those packages though.
Im also certain they’re not going it catch it all in their own packages.
I don’t think that’s what’s being discussed?
There’s no assertion that the debian OS as installed will be free from AI generated code.
I presume the assertion is that the debian project’s code of conduct will require some level of human involvement in code generation.
Its definitely being discussed and voting is happening as we speak.
https://www.debian.org/vote/2026/vote_002
No it isn’t. That proposal specifically states that upstream code is not included in the ban.
Literally in proposal A:
Cool downvote tho
“may be included at a later date” so it isn’t in the proposal right now. nice way to be dishonest, instead of just admitting that you were wrong. Because this is in Proposal A:
Also whining about downvotes is such a pathetic look. You deserve them for lying.