Detailed Summary of the Debian AI-Generated Content Discussion (May 2024)

This document provides a comprehensive summary of the debate on the debian-project mailing list regarding the use of generative AI in Debian.

1. Initial Proposal and Context

Tiago Bortoletto Vaz (3qxsesyoouxh2h6fodosnln4wsyl3tpmnbcu6pqzekqkz6k577@a2gos5jbaowf) initiated the thread, expressing fear that Debian was already facing negative consequences from AI-generated content. He cited Gentoo’s AI policy (which banned AI-generated content due to copyright, quality, and ethical concerns) as a potential model and suggested a General Resolution (GR) might be necessary to establish a project-wide position.

2. The Technical and Philosophical Debate

AI as a “Tool”

Ansgar (293ea612c85c613358d695474f1a36b65a6e1090.camel@43-1.org) argued that AI is just another tool, similar to non-free software like Photoshop or Gmail. He compared banning AI to banning Tor just because it can be used for illegal acts.
Sam Hartman (tsledak2dcb.fsf@suchdamage.org) agreed, trusting developers to use it appropriately for tasks like project name suggestions, tone adjustment, or as a “possibly incorrect man page.”
Dominik George (nik) (C1EAB351-06BD-4414-AE24-CDB6A4F654C0@debian.org) countered that the issue is the output, not the tool. He argued that AI outputs are derivatives of copyrighted works, making it impossible to satisfy Debian’s requirements for accurate d/copyright files and reproducible sources.

The Nature of “Derivative Works”

Ansgar (b0fe465153c303984f549e8d5c3f953f8280da72.camel@43-1.org) noted that humans also produce derivative works by being inspired by others. He argued that the “preferred form of modification” for AI-assisted work is simply the output itself, especially if further edited.
Dominik George argued there is a fundamental difference: one can ask a human about their inspirations or interactions, but an LLM “probably sucked in everything” without a way to trace specific influences (75BBA2A8-A53B-4ABB-ACAA-F2DC9F4CFC83@debian.org).
Charles Plessy (ZjRiTUin6u9kb4Ct@bubu.igloo) viewed commercial AI as “copyright laundering machines” that transfer the energy of Free Software contributors into proprietary works.

3. Legal and Moral Complexity

Russ Allbery (874jbgghvl.fsf@hope.eyrie.org) emphasized that Debian is a “big-tent” project where there is no consensus on the morality of copyright. He advised a reactive approach: if a specific piece of software is found to violate the DFSG (Debian Free Software Guidelines) due to AI content, it should be handled like any other bug.
G. Branden Robinson (20240502234552.q77nnp6gfmj3ixrf@illithid) warned about “copyright cartels” (like the AP) that claim rights over even “rewritten” material, suggesting AI might be used by both sides in this “storming of the Bastille.”
Mo Zhou (fde6864f-6bf9-45c4-b824-7190c3c67570@debian.org) pointed to his existing ML-Policy and noted that the legal status of AI outputs (like the NYT vs. OpenAI lawsuit) remains unsettled.

4. Practical Impact on Debian Processes

New Member (NM) and Communication

Tiago (hf3fe7mgdyzok7yjtyt6qaheor3bbzm3ffowk3vhxuge4fimbr@dtkn7ovo4nrr) clarified his main concern was the “mindless” use of LLMs in the NM process, bug tracking, and IRC.
Sam Hartman (tslwmoa23sw.fsf@suchdamage.org) argued that the NM process is built on trust. If an applicant uses an LLM to answer questions instead of demonstrating their own skill, it is a violation of trust that Application Managers (AMs) are already equipped to handle.
Jose-Luis Rivas (D102CZBNFZ3K.12IKY5O91NIRS@debian.org) defended the use of AI for non-native English speakers to improve the clarity of their communication.

Tone and the “Human Voice”

Russ Allbery (87edaihlot.fsf@hope.eyrie.org) made a passionate plea for maintaining a human voice. He described LLM-generated prose as “sociopathic,” “soulless,” and sounding like a “McKinsey consultant trying to sell war crimes.” He stated he would rather struggle with less-than-fluent English from a real person than read polished but “slippery” AI text.

5. Proposed Solutions and Responsibilities

Stefano Zacchiroli (zack) (20240503161021.ygiylauxlg3q5pus@upsilon.cc) suggested looking at scientific journals: allow AI for improving content but not creating it, and require disclosure.
Mo Zhou (733c805c-262e-4e4e-8726-a015f6e995af@debian.org) argued for a simple rule: “Let the person who use AI be responsible for AI’s fault.” He noted that Nature does not allow LLMs to be listed as authors.
Russ Allbery added that anyone using AI to summarize the Debian Policy takes full responsibility for any “nonsense or lies” the AI produces; Policy editors will not spend time correcting AI-generated hallucinations.

6. Conclusion

The discussion ended without a formal policy or General Resolution. Tiago Bortoletto Vaz (51fc56869829fe76d00c610238f9b425@debian.org) concluded that the project is far from consensus and that teams should handle AI content using their own criteria for now. The general sentiment leaned toward individual responsibility and disclosure rather than an outright ban.

Side Thread: Debian Acronyms

A meta-discussion arose (331a073d-a7d4-91f7-83ca-90d636d04b39@eastlink.ca) regarding the use of acronyms like “NM” (New Member) which can be confusing to long-time users. Participants pointed to the Debian Glossary as a resource and discussed ways to make it more visible.