Discussion
So Debian adopted a resolution on the use of “generative AI”:
https://www.debian.org/vote/2026/vote_002#texte
Condorcet spoke: of all the options put to the vote, it must be a good compromise, an average of where the community stands.
How much of a compromise is it really, though?
🧵
Their amoral contributors have voted to deliberately ensloppify.
The message of this resolution is that it’s neither “pro” nor “anti”: it’s neutral, promoting “responsible use”.
In fact, it looks like an example of “extreme centrism”: “Debian neither endorses nor prohibits the use of generative AI”, “Contributors are expected to exercise appropriate care”, “[t]his resolution therefore affirms that generative AI is neither exempt from nor subject to special rules”.
The narrative seems to be: “AI” is just another tool, nothing changes here—move along.
Under the guise of neutrality, what it actually does is open the gates to genAI-produced contributions. This, is political.
The “responsible use” narrative shifts responsibility from the group to the individual. It’s not unlike the tobacco industry’s strategy—or indeed that of the “AI” industry.
A funny example: the text recognizes that “the legal status of material produced by generative AI systems remains the subject of ongoing discussion in many jurisdictions” (a euphemism) and then states that Debian will “rely on the judgment and responsibility of its individual contributors”—as if individual contributors would know better than lawyers in this domain.
Disregard of legal issues is more of a detail though.
While the text states that “such tools can substantially improve the productivity of contributors” (which is a subject of debate), what’s telling is what the text doesn’t even mention: the “externalities”, the environmental and social impact of these services.
And that’s probably the crux of the split among free software people on this matter: are our development efforts made in a vacuum?
It’s not new: whether, for instance, to use BitKeeper for Linux development led to similar debates.
The difference here is that LLMs are not even “just a tool” in the sense BK was: the lock-in is going to be much deeper, in our organizations and in our brains. LLMs threaten the ideal of knowledge sharing and the social fabric we’ve built.
Install bonfire.cafe
Get the full app experience
