Home | Notifications | New Note | Local | Federated | Search | Logout

Note Detail

Reply to @civodul@toot.aquilenet.fr
Ludovic Courtès@civodul@toot.aquilenet.fr (2026-08-31 05:25:39)
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.
---Reply---
Ludovic Courtès@civodul@toot.aquilenet.fr (2026-08-31 05:26:51)
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.

---Replies---

Ludovic Courtès@civodul@toot.aquilenet.fr (2026-08-31 05:27:18)
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.