As far as LLMs go in Debian, I think that 936241857

I believe that, in the context of Debian voting, we are better off when we know the opinion of our peers, however, since the 2022-001 vote, it is no longer the case. Still, some DDs have disclosed the way they are voting on the 2026-002 General Resolution currently in progress, regarding LLM usage in Debian. So, here goes my vote and reasoning as briefly as possible. This is the ballot I sent to devotee, the Debian Vote Engine:

-=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
d69f9187-ed2f-40b6-a2eb-4211d3f84d86
[9] Choice 1: Ban LLM contributions from Debian via Social Contract
[3] Choice 2: Allow AI-Assisted Contributions with conditions
[6] Choice 3: Reject LLMs as far as practical, update Code of Conduct
[2] Choice 4: Accept AI contributions for Debian specific work
[4] Choice 5: Responsible Use of Generative AI
[1] Choice 6: A cautious approach to generative AI
[8] Choice 7: Debian is created by humans
[5] Choice 8: Avoid the use of LLM: climate destruction is a deal breaker
[7] Choice 9: None of the above
-=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

This is the first time I can recall I delay my voting until after receiving the final call for votes (the vote will be over two days from now). I had some participation in the discussion, so I guess my position will be of no big surprise to anybody. I was also a seconder for choices D and F (4 and 6 in the vote text). This does not necessarily mean I believe they are the best (although I did rank them as 2 and 1, meaning I do): sometimes you agree a given text needs to be in the ballot, and second it even though you don’t intend to vote for it.

Ranking this ballot was a mess due to the complex array of options it encodes. I warmly thank Lucas Nussbaum for coming up with the LLM usage in Debian: ballot option comparison (URL shown with my particular ballot ordering).

How do you read a complex Debian ballot like this one? I rank with [1] my favorite option, [2] for the next one, etc. We can encode options to be tied (i.e. setting more than options to the same value), and we can implicitly push options to the worst position by leaving them blank (so, with[ ]); I chose not to do any of those.

What were my voting guidelines?

First, I don’t want anything banning or that threatens with disciplinary action, so I push them below the special none of the above marker. Second… Some time ago I published a review in my blog (and in Computing Reviews) about the unfeasibility and unfairness of detecting LLM output on students’ assignments. I strongly believe we ought to appeal to the human responsibility and professionalism in all Debian contributors. This is the reason I proposed this amendment paragraph, that was accepted in choice F (6), which I ranked as my favorite:

The Debian project has always recognized the commitment and
professionalism of its members. All contributions are under the
responsibility of the Debian Contributor making it, no matter the
technology they have behind. We trust all Debian Developers,
Maintainers and Contributors will continue to uphold the high quality
values that have distinguished our project from its onset.

Other than that… I do not consider myself to be in any way an LLM fanboy nor anything like that. I distrust and dislike the excessive use of this technology, and continue to warn about the dangers and bad points of its abuse. But in my day-to-day professional work, I am also starting to rely on it for some tasks. I recognize it needs a lot of human oversight and… lets call it hand-holding to produce anything worth it, at least in my experience. But I do benefit from it — and always disclose its use to people who might be affected by it. I would like Debian to adopt such a stance.

Of course, I recgnize proposal H/8 as important (Avoid the use of LLM: climate destruction is a deal breaker). Some people have argued it’s not bad at all. I do not buy such claims: LLMs are f*cking expensive to train. But training can be seen as a once-per-model cost, and fine-tuning a good model to be run locally can be really worth it. It still pains me somewhat, but I cannot push this option higher than its #5 position in my list.