Well Debian has been a fun ride for the last 20 years or so… Wonder what’s next…
And here I was suspecting myself of looking for elitism for my thoughts of switching to some *BSD system
Yeah, I just heard the results of the vote yesterday (been traveling), so I plan on trying to replace Debian with NetBSD on my laptop as soon as I catch up post-vacation.
Is there any plan to fork it? Are there any non Debian systems that use apt?
Are there any non Debian systems that use apt?
Everything Ubuntu, Linux Mint, Pop!_OS. I don’t think any of them are planning on staying pure.
The fork would need its own kernel, since the kernel itself allows LLM. You’d also need to inspect each and every package periodically to make sure none have started allowing LLM usage and once you remove LLM-allowed packages, that breaks every dependent package as well.
Basically, you’re going to want to move to some form of BSD, or start a new operating system from scratch.
So Open-Source and FOSS projects collectively decided that they want to jump on half-sunken ship in the middle of the ocean?
Amazing.
Is it a half sunken ship? I’ve been following AI in software for a while now, even though all signs point to failure and a crash, it just keeps going and people adopt it more.
Hot take: LLMs is the best thing has happened to open source movement:
- software copyright is defeated and basically eliminated in practice
- reverse engineering is so accessible that proprietary protocols cannot be hidden and can be reimplemented by AI agents as free software
- open weight LLMs are incredibly competitive and run on general hardware
- linux is de facto winner in all computing and rising in desktop and gaming niches
We’re literally in the golden age of free software
Looks like I better start learning OpenBSD ASAP. I really like my distro of choice, but if the distro it’s based off of is shooting itself in the foot, I have to switch over massive ethical concerns!
Second I find out I can put a second drive in my desktop, I plan on using it to learn to make something a lot less hostile to the actual people helping develop the OS. And OpenBSD sounds like a fun choice for now… at least until I find they have started betraying the actual people.
It’s a desktop, there should be sufficient space to fit more than one drive. You can also use external drives. I use three on my server.
NetBSD is also worth a look, especially with the MicroVM kernel stuff in 11. You can look at smolBSD to start playing with it immediately.
If you’re worried about LLM generated code you better stop using computers altogether.
No, I am worried about idiots committing llm generated code straight into production without even bothering to review it
So you will check the development process or each project you use? Good luck with that.
So I will drop any project that goes nuts before they get a chance to fuck up my life or work
I’d rather spend my time using technology to spread the word that the creatures who use genAI can become human again through reeducation against genAI. Sounds much more productive.
Sure, just accept you will be using technology build with genAI.
Not much of an issue with that, I feel.
I can tell you for sure that the workers and the farmers did not own the pitchforks nor the materials for the guillotines with which they rebelled against their oppressors.
Return to monke. Literally.
Or maybe just get off the grid
From what I understand, while OpenBSD is currently not accepting LLM contributions, they mostly made that choice out of legal copyright concerns, and seem like they would jump on the bandwagon when they consider it to be safer legally.
Then I hope now for it to never become legally safe to use LLM code. LLMs have poisoned literally everything pure and holy and I hate them for it!
Sheesh get a grip.
Look if you contributed to Linux you are already an active fascist supporter because fascists use your technology, so do baby rapists and all the worse people in the world.
No it doesn’t work like that? But it does apparently. If you have ever contributed to privacy preserving projects you are actively enabling paedophiles this is no exaggeration this is how responsibility works, apparently.
This person knew all this they knew the kind of people that use their technology but they draw the line at another technology that could be used to catch a predator.
Feel free to have a counter argument… K
Weak bate. Keep trying.
K
Sheesh get a grip.
What’s Devuan’s position on this? They already forked after the SystemD switch. Here’s to hoping they also flip the bird to AI.
I doubt Devuan will stop basing their distro on Debian. Or at least I hope they don’t. I specifically use Devuan because it’s basically just OG Debian.
My main issue is that the packages are really behind though. Even more so than Debian.
I wish there was a good in-between. Ubuntu was a good sweet spot, but I can’t stand how they keep forcing their technology on their users anymore.
Yeah it can be a bit annoying at times. I started out using Debian-based distros before systemd implementation, so Devuan with sysvinit just works for me. I’m not the sort of user who needs the latest updates on anything, so it’s mostly fine. I considered checking out Slackware since it also uses sysvinit, but it’s in a similar boat with updates and, frankly, I don’t want to deal with its package manager lol.
Doesn’t really matter because they still use the Linux kernel, which AFAIK allows LLM contributions.
AFAIK they do not yet have an official stance on AI/LLM use within the project.
Not yet. I suppose it shouldn’t be long…
The without disclosure part tells everything you need to know here. If it’s such a benign and maybe even beneficial thing to do then why are you hiding it? What possible reason could you have not to label that? In an open source Community shouldn’t everything like that be known?
There are so many levels of LLM involvement and once you make this distinction you actually have to devote some of your limited resources to define and enforce it. So I think it might not be strictly beneficial, but possibly also have downsides.
Where would you draw the line at which point it counts as LLM involvement? Having one run as some sort of spell/syntax checker? Doing some research (and being influenced by it) before hand coding something? Having it create a working prototype and then reimplementing it by hand? If you use code from somewhere else to solve a problem and ai use has not been disclosed for this code, do you automatically have to assume LLM usage was involved or is there plausible deniability?
I think in the end you’d have to use too many resources check it and debate where the line is drawn, when the real question is how you retain human knowledge and engagement within your community.
Just disclose how you used it.
I wonder what’s the reason to make it optional? I think I’ve seen this approach with other projects as well. Isn’t transparency and accountability a good thing? Also, this kind of information helps immensely when reading pull requests or silly bug reports. And Debian acknowledge there might be licensing issues. So it might become some sort of liability to them once it taints everything and we can’t even tell?! So why? What’s the upside? Adorn oneself with borrowed plumes and not being forced to disclose the fact? Or too much bookkeeping?
Because the idea is to judge the code by its quality, not by who or what wrote it.
I think it’s just the simple fact that there’s no way to enforce it
There are ways to enforce it. Yeah, you won’t be able to make everyone follow the rule, but it’s the same with any law and any public policy and they’re still valuable. You don’t make campaigns against DUI because you expect everyone to stop doing it, as that’s a nirvana fallacy.
Which tells a lot about how good they are. Slop is slop because it’s bad, but a high quality PR isn’t
Conversely… if it’s so benign, why should it have a label?
Not really worth discussing - it’s not benign, and it can be made purposefully not benign by a third party without notification or knowledge. A third party who has already demonstrated a penchant for world domination, both technologically and physically.
Code in general is proven not to be benign
Excuse you my code doesn’t even compile properly, so it can not be malign by definition.
I should hope that open source developers are exclusively using open source models that are trained on open source projects.
I mean, I would think, at least. It seems to me that most of the people in charge of big projects are usually FOSS purists.
That’s part of the reason why AI scrapers are breaking the small web. FOSS purists really have no significant defense against it aside from Anubis.
Real DoS protection comes from capacity, which costs serious dollars, especially in this day and age where botfarms can be hired by the hour for rather cheap and record-breaking attacks seem to happen like monthly.
The alternative is using a CDN, but there are none that align with FOSS ideals. And for CDNs to be really effective, you need them to break open TLS and handle the decrypted traffic, which raises privacy concerns on top.
But anyways…most license agreements would make it a requirement that if you’re using an open-source model, that it be properly attributed, right?
I should hope that open source developers are exclusively using open source models that are trained on open source projects.
Most developers who use these tools (even FLOSS developers) appear to be using the corporate owned models that were definitely trained on both proprietary source code and code that is incompatible with the GPL license. Some EU courts have also already judged that LLM code cannot be copyrighted, which also means it cannot be licensed as GPL.
Currently, all code generated with an LLM has a 3 to 10% chance of unknowingly plagiarizing the copyrighted code it was trained on, and any FLOSS project that uses it is making a huge gamble that their codebase won’t be scanned by corporations in the future looking for violations to sue about, shut down rival FLOSS projects, etc.
It would be Useful for doing a retrospective on whether AI is helpful or not
Eye contact is benign for most of us. We still give it a context warning in civilized circles. It costs us almost nothing, and lets people make an informed decision what you engage with.
Initially sent to debian-private, shared here because I want the consequences of Debian fully embracing fascist-backed technology to be known.
That seems to be a bit far reached and naive. Hopefully Antoine isn’t driving cars, because there are several brands that were supported by Nazi’s at one time in the past.
Besides that, I think it is good to have a discussion about the use or LLM. I just think that the reason here is a bit unusual.
Brain rot comparison.
Buying a car does nothing to support fascists from the 1940s. Meanwhile paying meta/google etc or using their products directly funds their influence campaigns to hide crimes against humanity taking place every day.
So what is your suggestion? Where do you draw the line? Because obviously it is not just about LLM.
because there are several brands that were supported by Nazi’s at one time in the past.
The AI’s that most people use support fascists in the present.
Same goes for PayPal, and yet everybody keeps using it. Not saying that this is a reason to use Frontier models. But calling the whole technology fascist is simply not true.
That’s what a fascist would say
Surveillence is not fascist.
Do most people use nemotron models?
When the surveillance is being sold to fascist governments to identify, suppress and imprison dissidents, it is fascist.
The German Nazis stored people data on Hollerith punch cards supplied by US company IBM.
https://ahrp.org/30999-2/So maybe you should’ve started with that as your argument?
Respect to Antoine. Having principles that are worth a damn is a rare trait amongst developers these days.
“AI scrapers break the web, to use this page you’ll need JavaScript enabled.”
The ironic…
The world needs more people that act on principles and take a stance.
Weird that he didn’t care when Linus Torvalds adopted basically the same policy to the kernel that serves as the foundation of the main Debian distribution. I have an inkling that there is more going on at Debian, not LLM use alone.
didn’t he? have you checked?
the main thing is that it’s an upstream problem. the linux kernel is used in nuclear missiles. if you want to stay on that kernel you have to take what you are given. in your own organisation you can at least try to change things.
I don’t think so. I got no sources or anything, but I think most nuclear missile silos and their software predate the linux kernel. And since we don’t really build nuclear weapons anymore but stick with the ones we already have, I don’t think that the linux kernel is really used in these kinds of sites.
However, that’s me guessing - wouldn’t say that I’m even 50% confident.
the linux kernel is used in nuclear missiles
source:
Idk anything about this…but here is my Google results
Don’t think golden dome is actually implemented, though just some trump delusion…but apparently this Redhawk Linux is used in…
Nuclear missiles probably run vxworks or another rtos, not linux
FOSS nukes when?
If he resigned only now, he didn’t resign before. What is there to check? That is common sense. Linus allowed LLM use and he was fine with Debian building on it. After all, all LLM use is literal fascism in his eyes.
He didn’t leave the Linux-based OS for Linus Torvalds himself stating a similar policy for the Linux kernel before Debian did.
Debian has a history of maintaining ancient kernels. But it’s hard to believe that he assumed Debian to just fork Linux…
@ProdigalFrog
> “Pretending to have a “neutral stance” when faced with fascism is not neutrality, it’s active collaboration.”Bars. I’m sure it wasn’t an easy decision, I hope Antoine gets to keep his peace undisturbed.
Fascism is when people can use AI.
deleted by creator
debian maintainer resigns
Is fedora gonna get worse?
Did you even read the dann blog post?
