@evan
YB
Some do. Some don't. Some are still sorting it out.

I think people might be overreacting to the Debian decision, because "responsible use of AI" seems poorly defined, and may be interpreted differently by different people (so maybe that is a false consensus).

I also think obsevers may not fully appreciate how oppressive a fully-anti-AI policy could be. That has real potential to become a witch hunt (hard to prove either way, carries heavy shame and reputation issues, accuses dishonesty, purity politics, slippery slope, etc).

Edge cases immediately spring to my mind (e.g. What if SEE an LLM implementation and then write my own? Is that "LLM assisted", because my brain is 'polluted'..? 🤔)

@evan heavily depends on the organization.

@evan

Yes, but less and less so...

Even if all F/LOSS and Open Internet organisations embrace AI (which does not reflect my values) they're still Open, which makes them more aligned with my values than proprietary software and closed organisations without AI.

I might change my mind about that, depending on how bad AI gets.

@evan love the timing of this poll 😅 I'm sure people would have had a different answer at the start of the week

@evan ... given the fact that "Open Source and Open Internet organisations" is a quite diverse group: Some do, some don't

@evan I do not have knowledge of what all open source organizations think about AI, but I do know that Debian just voted for "we'll allow it if everyone pinky promises to be responsible" which is a no for me

@evan Man, I'm not even sure what my values with respect to AI are.

@evan some do some don't? i guess that's a "no but" :D