A good thing about the "you're the author regardless of the tool you used to produce the code" policy is that if a developer repeatedly submits poor quality AI generated code, one does not blame the model or the agent, one bans/terminates the developer.
The issue that open source projects are facing at the moment is that it takes significantly less effort to submit a patch for review.
A lot of developers who are submitting these AI patches don't necessarily understand the patch, so the onus is on the reviewer/code-owner.
The reviewers are getting swamped (some reviewers are receiving 100s or patches per month). If feedback is provided at lot of the time the patch author will just copy paste from an LLM, so the reviewer is essentially just coding with an LLM with more steps.
Prior to LLMs reviewing code was a mentorship experience, the patch author would likely learn a bunch afterwards. Now less so.
As a result a lot of projects are closing to external contributors.
I'm not sure what the answer is, LLM are great at speeding up coding/understanding/etc, but the valuable/expensive piece of work has shifted to reviewing.
To me, that touches on the central issue. I think most people support the “I don’t care about the tool, only the outcome “
But, we have long had a stable social system for collaboration, and in particular dealing with low quality contributions. Mostly (or at least ideally) it involves taking some time to look at the contribution and provide some feedback. The time invested is not worth it on a single exchange basis, but it’s a repeat game, so you are investing in the future.
LLMs, and people willing to just spam crap they don’t really understand blows that all up.
Nah, that was already blown up way before LLMs existed.
Foss wasn't exactly not miserable before 2022. The dysfunction just got amplified so that we cannot fix it anymore by just throwing more human resources at the problem.
I tried to nod a bit to the inconsistency. Some projects clearly lost patience with imperfect contributions long ago. But many were still pretty supportive.
This dynamic also plays out in many companies. I see a lot of posts from mid to sr engineers frustrated with plummeting code quality and unsure how to manage the reviews. They are increasingly pulling away from the idea that they should mentor people to do better.
I'm not convinced it blows up. It might also end up placing a larger burden on contributors, and especially first-time contributors, to provide concise, high-quality documentation that justifies their contribution.
I'm thinking of something like: Explain, in at most 300 characters, why we should merge your change, or at least why we should invest the time to read a longer explanation (somethings things ARE complex). If you don't do that, or those 300 characters aren't convincing, or have nothing to do with your change or the longer explanation, then you get a canned response so the maintainers waste minimal time.
yeah, that's fair. Problem so far has been when poor developers send massive volume of slop for review. Takes time and effort to review or at least glance and test it, especially if developer hasn't bothered.
Nothing. And that's the problem -- the issue isn't "should a contributor be able to use AI" it's quickly becoming "is this entire contributor an AI agent". Every actual-human who gets a bad first experience hurts the project. The contributors having to be suspicious of new people hurts the project. The whole thing just sucks, and I don't know how to fix it.
I use claude-code, but the AI ecosystem and some of the autonomous tooling coming out of it -- which some people "helpfully" use irresponsibly and point at OSS projects they aren't personally invested in -- enables a LARGE amount of abusive behavior towards open source projects. This is even before we get into how many infrastructural resources crawlers eat up.
Me, and most other OSS contributors, signed up to be a mentor, to create software, to work together ... not to be the equivalent of a reddit moderator banning AI agents left and right.
ngl this is just gatekeeping. Tons of people can now create software for themselves and others who couldn’t do so before. I get it that some established projects have a way of doing things and don’t want to change and to some extent that is their prerogative, but casting moral judgement on the entire field of coding agents based on that is just icky.
Good. I want open source projects which serve infrastructure to be gate kept so that only responsible people are involved. Responsible people can use AI too. Get all of those people on board, and keep out irresponsible people!
Most people who wrote software before AI didn’t contribute to projects like Debian because it takes a certain passion and commitment. Just being able to write code is not the bar for entrance here.
As a beneficiary of Debian, this is good, your words are praise by feint damnation. I wish Debian had done more gatekeeping in the past on specific components.
I don't care if a project uses AI or not, but I absolutely do care that they are firmly gatekept in alignment with their vision and team dynamics. Then I can choose projects whose gatekeeping policies I agree with.
There is never not an alternative to something, and I can always have my AI botch together my own version if I think this is going to get me better results.
This isn't talking about bespoke software, though. This is talking about upstreaming contributions to others. This puts a low barrier to create work and a lot more work for unpaid volunteers.
Gatekeeping serves a useful purpose in any functioning organization of all scales, from a community center to a country, from an open source project to a Fortune 500.
I can't speak for all, but many mature open source communities have explicit or ad-hoc reputation schemes that are used to triage contributions. A fresh account means starting over with zero reputation, which in turn means your contributions wait at the back of the line.
Well. This is Debian, known for how strict they are about vetting developers. I just remembered Sladen refusing to key sign because my passport circa 2005 didn't have a machine readable slug in it.
In anonymous systems, where we don't use real names, your "handle" has an "age".
That becomes your most prized possession.
I have a reddit account thats over 12 years old. I have left the posts/comments open. That means, my "post history" becomes a way to advertise my skills.
I can reference comments from a year ago or 6 months ago about a certain topic to show how I handled something. That does have an effect on people.
As opposed to a random 1 day old account. No one takes them seriously, I guess the same is here as well
No one takes a 12 year old Reddit account seriously either. It's not a platform you can take anyone seriously. The biggest trolls have 12 year old accounts.
Are there examples of anyone discussing this and reaching other conclusions?
We've come to the same conclusion in our organization and while it felt like it needed to be discussed and stated, I've never heard of anyone coming to a different conclusion.
[EDIT: I was referring specifically to the idea that you have to stand by the code that you write. Is anyone deciding on a policy that says "the AI did it" is a valid excuse for breaking code?]
> I was referring specifically to the idea that you have to stand by the code that you write.
Any serious entity which has experts handling code will do so, yes.
My employer, for example, has various teams of actual developers and others with a significant number of “not really” devs who found their way into DevOps roles. The teams with seasoned developers hold the author responsible as to the integrity and quality of code, regardless of tools used. They won’t hesitate to call someone out directly for low-quality submissions in Teams channels. The teams that have a lot of “not really” devs will blame the model for issues that surface. Of course, they’re also pushing to not have to write any code directly by FY2028, but instead have models do it as part of an internal AI initiative. Somehow the idea of using AI to generate reports, process reports, write code, test and deploy got signed off.
On the opposite side or the noteable spectrum, look up "Steve Yegge wants you to stop looking at your code." He said it in a video interview, though plenty of summaries online of exact wording and ideas. Though it's being argued that you could still be responsible for it without looking at it?
Extremes on both sides. I'd wager were moving in Yegge's direction though, like it or not.
> Though it's being argued that you could still be responsible for it without looking at it?
If you have a much test coverage as SQLite, I'd be tempted to trust it, and I think that's where we are headed. Someone still needs to define these guardrails though, so IMO the developers job is just mutating into something else, but is still necessary. Long term, who knows.
For me, it’s not a question of whether I like it, nor where we might move in the future, but purely what is proven currently. In my experience, as in my evals, any model, including notably Fable 5 and GPT-5.6 Sol can and indeed do produce code that does not consider many edge cases, can be hard to maintain (especially Sol though it’s output has become markedly better with recent changes to Codex) and sometimes introduce bugs with visibly apparent issues. Existing test coverage doesn’t necessarily prevent such issues when changes or additions are made. The idea that models tend to gravitate towards the house style without major CI based restrictions also has not born fruit in my book. More, I have found even the frontier models amazing at utterly deviating from established standards and tests, what lint, tc and co don’t catch the model will take to introduce code that feels and reads like it does not fits with the rest.
Models also still can have major task adherence issues, so even a perfectly well scoped, well considered prompt that covers all situations and coverage can, in many scenarios lead to output users may not expect or notice without reading code. Seen it a lot, just lost some blood and tears to a very straight front end implementation task that I ended up applying manually cause both Sol and Fable struggle to copy a few dozen HTML/JS/CSS snippets properly into a slightly obscure codebase, despite the reference being fully featured and even using the same token scheme, etc…
We also see such issues in what labs deliver in their own software products. We are not at the stage where a human shouldn’t sign off on code that they have tested and understood. A hypothetical future, I don’t really care for, we’d notice when labs stop shipping easily apparent bugs, though even then, I’d still feel there is a while in between that and not needing to assess the output anymore.
There is, in my mind, no need for this “narrative shifting”, overtone window (don’t get me started on the idea of applying that to what should be a purely technical discussion), convince the unbelievers nonesense that some spend their time on. If models could provide code that didn’t necessitate review, there’d be no one needing to argue that case. If and when they can, we’ll know it, but not because of those espousing this currently.
That might be an interesting parallel. Maybe code becomes like legal documents. Binding but inscrutable, full of small mistakes and not really tailored for human ingestion.
The Asahi Linux project bans LLMs. Unfortunate as LLM reverse engineering and driver writing would bring Linux to more Mac models much faster.
The Zig project rejects LLM based contributions.
Some of these policies were introduced when LLMs were really bad at writing code and haven’t been revisited. Some groups don’t care about the quality and object on moral or copyright grounds.
Debian gives attribution to every single open source project in existence that is capable of running on Linux, and is Free Software. It is exactly the project that shouldn't worry about copyright.
The "moral" argument I haven't even heard. It's just people pouring out invective, likely imo because Ruby-monkey is not going to be a $150K job anymore. I have problems with these companies, but companies who are problematic can be targeted specifically, and somehow everybody started using Facebook's frontend framework and Microsoft's IDE, all on MacBooks, and this is what they're throwing a shitfit about. To me it's narcissism, not a coherent moral objection.
If you hate these companies (as you should), there are open models. But you didn't object to anything that didn't threaten your income.
As others have said there are other conclusions going both ways (though I do think most settle on as you said), though one very fair conclusion I came across is that it's not allowed because the whole issue of copyright is still somewhat unresolved, and though its fine right now, that could (probably wont, but could) massively backfire later.
Linus Torvalds regarding the Linux kernel is reasonably similar. He views AI/LLMs as just another tool in the development process. Think about life before and after modern IDEs that features IntelliSense circa 2000. It was night and day. It did not make programmers dumber -- it was a new tool.
Except LLMs actually are making programmers dumber. I personally know people, people whom I know for a fact were good programmers before, who have now completely stopped using their brains. When you ask them why they did something in the code, they say "I don't know, Claude did that and I didn't really question it". There was no such analogous phenomenon with IDEs.
I have had the same experience and feel pressured to adopt it. I had one former colleague say “you really have to stop looking at code” almost incredulous that I was uncertain about whether we should let models write really bad code and architecture that never would have been allowed in the before times. I will say when I let the agents go autonomous I often find I spend more time refactoring than if I had moved slower and forced them to write good code and follow project architecture patterns.
I use agents to build exactly what I want like I am pair programming with a jr engineer, and review every line of final output before I make a PR.
I would have zero tolerance if anyone that did anything less in my orgs. Owning and understanding the code you submit is the one job that matters most now.
It doesn't apply to everyone, but yes I know people who are over-reliant on LLMs and definitely getting dumber. With devs and non-devs too. I hate seeing this happen.
IDEs enable us to not bother memorizing the number and order of arguments, long names beyond the first word or two, etc. the impact is comparable, freeing some of the very limited space in our memory for more important things.
sure, students and juniors shoot themselves in the dick if they let LLMs do everything, but they're fucked anyway so it doesn't matter,
That's because you are used to it. I am old enough to have been there during the rise of things like intellisense and language servers, people were making the exact same arguments about them. That not knowing your API to the core makes you a bad programmer. I'm sure for IDEs themselves there were similar arguments and it goes all the way back to Socrates' warning against writing. These arguments always end with "but this time it's different". And inevitably each time it's not.
I spend a ton of time mentoring Jrs in FOSS communities, but I confess as a startup founder myself I could simply not justify hiring anyone but self-directed seniors until we are profitable enough to set some money on fire for what would effectively be just a long term investment in creating a few new Srs. But Jr hiring will never again be what it was unless it gets subsidized somehow as partial charity.
Number and order of arguments, long names, etc. are just bureaucracy. Knowing them doesn't mean you understand the codebase any better than if you rely on the IDE for it.
It's a bit like remembering the exact date an historical event happened vs. knowing at which point in history it did, what other events relate to it, etc. Neither makes you better or worse at knowing and understanding the history of the event.
That's what delegation looks like, but it needs a better process.
They could be committing plan files alongside any nontrivial change to application code, and the plan file can have everything you'd care about, like the invariants it held to and why, the rejected ideas and why, the acceptable risks and why, etc.
This is solved by better usage of LLMs, not less.
The divide to me isn't engineering skill vs those who lost it, it's people who care vs. those who don't care. It's a higher level thing now that we're working at a higher level (delegation).
That's a cultural thing. Push back on it and don't make it acceptable behavior. I would argue most people generally are terrible at code review and do this same behavior with their peers as well, but at least their peers are capable of owning some level of responsibility, whereas the LLM is not.
You can just ask Claude why it did something in the code and it will tell you
Programmers just moved up a level , not dumber, we are now managers of a team of 'agent' programmers. The deliverable is now a functionality instead of a specific block of code
But will Claude give you an authentic rationale and a traceable, verifiable "line of reasoning" for those things? Or will it just construct the next plausible Markov chain built on whatever Reddit thread it ingested at random?
You can ask Claude or any LLM for citations, and it will RAG them out ex post facto. Those actually aren't citations, they're just web searches for related articles, and they don't necessarily support the assertions that you're asking to cite.
I am sure that Claude and the others can produce intermediate logs of their inference and "reasoning" process while they are processing stuff, but can they really go back within the context window and construct an authentic apologia for a specific thing when you ask for it?
You certainly can ask it to produce a verifiable report that tells you how to verify its claims. Yes, you do need to verify the results and confirm you agree with it. I do this sort of thing a lot to discover misunderstandings Claude has about things and iterating on them. There's a difference between reading everything yourself vs having a discussion where one of you (Claude) will happily dig through everything and create detailed memos for review. If you want line numbers as evidence, just ask then verify, etc.
I think LLMs make programmers lazy more than anything. And when programmers stop programming for extended periods, they lose their programming skills. No surprise here. Use it or lose it.
I think a possible solution on both fronts (maintaining software quality, preventing skill atrophy) may be implementation of strict token budgets. Make the individual programmer choose how they are going to spend their limited tokens for the day/week. Provide just enough to use it as a plan/development/review tool, but nowhere near enough to just go full send AI vibe coding software factory slop mode all day long.
You could also say the same with desktops. Desktops abstracted CLI commands like mv or ls. People who are taught on desktops will get scared when they see a terminal.
Yet programmers will still know commands.
Abstractions can make things easier but it doesn't require losing skills.
> Except LLMs actually are making programmers dumber.
Make that some/a lot, but not all.
There is a clear bifurcation. A lot of those that never cared really don't care now, but then you get others that can use it to crank that much harder than ever before.
If you put the same brain effort in but leverage LLMs you really can be dramatically more productive.
I'm not dumb. I care a great deal and I always have. I've just never been good at programming.
When I recently found a small bug in how NTP is implemented in Home Assistant OS that was affecting my use of it, I thought about just reporting that bug.
But I set the bot to work on corrective measures, instead.
The first proposed fixes were overbearing and awful. Maybe they'd have worked but it hurt my soul to look at them. I couldn't accept them -- not for my system at home nor for anyone else's.
Through a laborious process (that many here could have skipped entirely), I eventually got what I feel is a cromulent fix down to a few lines of changes in an init script.
I didn't write it. All I did was direct (and sometimes brow-beat) the bot, rejecting things over and over while optimizing at a high level until it produced an acceptable result.
I now have a fix that is tidy-enough that it can be applied to running systems. It is easy to understand what it does, and why it does it -- even for me. Perhaps I should submit a PR...
> They just don't care. They didn't before either.
...but this kind of blanket mentality really puts a damper on my willingness to do so.
I'm a person who is over-reliant on LLMs, doesn't know how most of the things in the codebase work, and is atrophying both in programming and in general cognition.
I don't want to speak for them, but perhaps this is a very real consequence of the "use ai or get left behind" talking point. Maybe they were effectively scared into it, and now are too far gone. They seem like a very reasonable person if they're admitting to being over reliant on LLMs, so I don't mean this as an insult
They cared enough to do good work before, so I don't think that your explanation suffices here. From my observation (not just with their programming but in other interactions), it truly is that using an LLM has made these people less intelligent than they were before.
A friend of mine, really nice guy, is training as a lawyer at the moment. He has zero interest in law or justice, but heard that lawyers make a lot of money. Not too long about, programming went through a very similar phase. To be clear its not that I think programmers or lawyers shouldn't make good money, they absolutely should and it is deserved, its just it has the unfortunate side effect of attracting people who don't care about the field itself. For those people, they care as little as they can get away with and still be paid big money, and if LLM's allow them to do that at the cost of quality, they absolutely will.
I do think LLM's are making some genuine programmers less intelligent, but I think this type of person makes up a decent portion of its users too
There was an increasingly scary mass of people in the industry that viewed the coding as a sort of therapeutic exercise, and would become quite obsessive about it. For those people LLMs are anathema because they take away what was the rewarding part of the job.
If you care primarily about the quality of the end result, as opposed to being attached to a particular process of achieving it, then you're happy about how things have gone.
You find it scary that people enjoy what they do? Simply caring about the end result is often not wise, ethical, or sustainable, and the quality thereof is dubious in any case, especially when you consider that the end result of developing software is never just the artifact.
Treating coding as the therapeutic reward for other things (typically tolerating bureaucracy) and then indulging obsessions about it absolutely is unhealthy.
And I've seen exactly this across multiple large and small organizations in multiple countries, in addition to being all over here and the red site.
> Treating coding as the therapeutic reward for other things (typically tolerating bureaucracy) and then indulging obsessions about it absolutely is unhealthy.
> And I've seen exactly this across multiple large and small organizations in multiple countries, in addition to being all over here and the red site.
I know that experience, but I do have a different opinion on this:
Many such people studied computer science (a similar point holds for mathematics, physics and some engineering disciplines) because they love coding.
Unluckily, the job that they got does involve barely any clever coding, but rather
- tolerating and gluing together shitty code pieces that someone else wrote
- tolerating red tape
So, such people simply do in their free time what they love. And to come back to my point "similar point holds for mathematics, physics and some engineering disciplines": these people try to use their little free time to prove some novel theorems or put their shed full of machines like 3D printers, CNC mills, CNC lathes, laser cutters, self-built pick-and-place machines, ... to work on their own beloved engineering projects.
People who simply enjoy coding (without treating it to be "therapeutic") are still unhappy because working with LLMs is just not the same, and not rewarding in the same way
> If you care primarily about the quality of the end result, as opposed to being attached to a particular process of achieving it, then you're happy about how things have gone.
We must be living on different planets, because from everything I can see, software quality is at a historic low.
I just means I'm gonna be filthy rich in a couple of years when most programmers have lost their proficiency and me never having used Claude or any other A.I. slop tool.
Yep. This is my policy. Use whatever tools however they serve you, the standards do not change.
If someone makes a sloppy 100,000 line PR in a day the problem is not whether it was generated by Claude or frantically written using VIM and a mechanical keyboard.
I think this is reasonable but I wonder how long it will last. If the hugging face hack has demonstrated anything it’s that current agents are capable of going entirely rogue and causing harm. If only the human that triggered the incident is responsible we are creating a situation where people are responsible for things they didn’t intend and may end up in a situation where it’s essentially impossible to use AI except in a more limited auto complete style. I am on board with that. I think we should be reviewing code and retaining the ability to write code but there is such a massive incentive to automate agents that I wonder how long prudent organizations will be able to resist the forces. I don’t pretend to have an answer.
The outcome of this vote is not set in stone. If the situation changes, there can be another general-resolution vote to adapt to the new situation. I think the result of this vote is appropriate for the current degree of automation when used responsibly.
Problem is, that you realise very quickly the asymmetry of responsibility and effort. There is far more to review from people who do not care enough to even look at what the agent pooped out.
I always find the “personal responsibility” take hilarious against at-will employment and the usual course of turnover. What is your recourse when you uncover a liar? You can page the responsible party at 3am when their vibe-coded slop breaks prod, and you can fire them when they can’t fix it. Prod is still broken. You still don’t understand the code. At the end of the day, once you hit the merge button, the team is responsible for the code no matter what. You should treat the original author’s presence as a courtesy.
My employer has this policy. We also have a strong code review process. But it all crumbles in the face of developers burning out as management thinks we can move way faster and being overloaded with code that had little thought put into it.
Opposite policy at one of my clients (kind of). I am responsible for the code that upper management's Claude produces. Some Mondays, I will start work with a half dozen emails with attachments of Claude generated code for something I don't even know what the point is, with the task of "integrate this and make sure it works." without any context to go along with it, so I have to read the code, usually hundreds of lines and understand WHY manager wanted it, before I can start to code it myself, because it is 1) in the wrong language, 2) doesn't understand our codebase, 3) is using libraries we can't license, etc.
My job has been less watching Claude Code, and more watching Managers Claude Code.
Before I left Google recently there was a document going around called go/stake-your-reputation, basically saying "I'm happy to receive your AI generated code but the condition is that I will judge your capabilities by it, exactly as if you handwrote it, and I'll lower my opinion of you if it's slop (with the implication that if you don't improve I'll stop accepting your contributions)"
I think the term "stake your reputation" is quite good for this situation. I.e. "hi new contributor, please acknowledge that you Stake Your Reputation before we move ahead with this code review".
From my layman understanding, the ownership of LLM generated code isn’t yet clarified. It could be that the person who prompted owns it, but it could also be nobody owns it, and we don’t yet have a legal ruling to rely upon, no?
I don't see why an open source project would care one way or the other? If the prompter owns it then they are licensing it by submitting it to the project. If no one owns it then there is no problem.
We don’t know yet because that’s an unresolved matter. The question of ownership is currently undefined as far as I understand. It could be that after an actual legal decision the ownership doesn’t end up being one of those 2 cases, for whatever reasons the judge would decide
To a company ownership is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether it contains trade secrets and that is often only proven if an employee worked at their company before
We are talking about Debian, a free software that cares a lot about the licensing of its packages. The licensing and authorship is an essential element of the project
Yes, because they want to avoid trade secret lawsuits is what I understand? Computer generated output including code is in the public domain according to the us copyright office, so licensing and authorship are only relevant due to trade secrets is what I understand
I wholly agree with your comment, but is it legally "your code"? Copyright is implicit at the moment of human creation. But there isn't yet settled law on AI-assisted creation.
So it might be a problem for projects to accept contributions where it's not clear who actually owns that work.
Not a lawyer, but to some degree I think policies like the one Debian came up with can help the argument. You’re not submitting a stream of commits that all have an Authored-By: Claude Code footer and massive yappy commits and comments. The policy essentially forces there to be a degree of human authorship to each commit even if some of the bits came from LLM assistance.
Literally irrelevant and I have no idea why people even bring this up constantly. Copyright is practically unenforceable in the software world, when was the last time you saw someone (a company or an individual) actually sue _and win_? Apple wasn't capable of stopping all the other phone manufacturers from directly cloning their product (despite having patents & copyright) so how can an individual? The only thing that matters is execution.
For instance, my repos are cloned like ~100/week by what I presume are bots and AI lab scrapers using them for training material. How am I supposed to even find out who's doing it, and if they're abiding by the licenses I provided? It's impossible.
Lastly, having copyright isn't the same thing as being allowed to commercialize the software (and I believe loads of people confuse the two). You can still sell public domain code, even if you don't have copyright over it.
That might be your intuition but it’s not how the law works for code ownership. It’s very relevant for free software given the whole principle of free software is a copyright hack that protects a set of freedoms by relying on the copyright being recognized and enforceable.
If you drop the copyright claim you drop the protection of free software freedoms.
Software is one of the most derivative types of works ever invented. It's arguably based on copying what other people have already created. The modern world would look a lot more primitive if this wasn't the case.
Corporations like Coca-Cola long ago figured out that begging people not to steal your ideas is a waste of time. If you don't want people using your ideas, then don't share them.
Dunno why so many programmers don't get this and seem perpetually butthurt that other programmers figured out the ultimate way for programmers to rip off each other's code.
At this point, who could bring a copyright claim? Well, considering the massive AI training effort hoovering everything up, seems it might be approximately everyone.
Who would they be making the claim against? Well, considering the massive uptake of AI across the tech industry & beyond... approximately everyone.
Yes, the model companies are in the middle, but it's getting to the point where it seems a bit doubtful that claims will have any significant outcomes.
NYT might be able to get OpenAI to pay them for their content, but that's more of a financial tweak than a up-ending of industry.
This is the sensible option and well reasoned position, rather than a zero vote, total and complete ban by a single core maintainer, which is rather destructive for a project to do.
When you ask others that use AI frequently, the responsibility and understanding on what the agent wrote does not go away. You need to know what you are doing.
As soon as attackers are also using AI against your project, you have no choice but to use AI to protect yourself.
Yeah but how will this work in practice? IMHO people will just submit code they didn't write or understand.
Maintainers should quiz the submitters on the code and if they fail to answer reasonably the PR is dropped with the comment: "A.I. slop" and de submitter banned.
That is the purpose of submitting them for review. Maintainers should be doing that anyway. Whether AI was used to produce the change should be invisible or not apparent to the reviewer.
Debian is open source, there is no incentive to be "responsible for it", oh poor me, someone got a bug. If it's paid for through a job your argument is sound.
You can make the exact same argument with code written by humans. And if you were right we should see shitty bad code in open source projects like Linux, Postgres, etc. We don’t.
"Responsible for it" just means nobody has to tolerate shitty patches even if the reason they're shitty is because you neglected to pay attention to them. And if you blatantly fail to understand your own code or engage with reviewers, nobody has to trust that your LLM knew any better.
Well said. No one should trust an llm without verification/validation. They're just not good enough to do that and they have no sense of responsibility or ability to take it themselves. LLMs are empty.
The whole voting mechanism just exists as an elaborate dance that makes everyone keep their face, while the only sensible option wins.
A bureaucratic tarpit for bad ideas and emotions.
In a better world, none of this would be necessary, but we live in this world, and for that one, it's nice that someone engineered the system that way. Good job.
Related: I find this self-assessed AI level for contributions [1] to be extremely useful, both professionally and personally, to communicate the level of AI assistance so that the person on the receiving end can evaluate how much time & effort they want to spend understanding my code.
This is great. There's a big difference between levels 2-4 (where I generally operate) and levels 7-8 (where I see a lot of others operate), and I like how this level system makes that explicit.
Good to see the most common sense option winning. Some of the other proposals were so disconnected from reality I'm surprised they were even considered.
If there weren't a wide range of options offered, there'd be a risk of it not actually reflecting what people want - which is, presumably, the whole point of putting it to the vote in the first place.
This indicates you might be in a bubble. I interact with people with a very wide range of opinions on AI and I’m not surprised by any of the proposals here.
> What LLMs in Debian development will do, I fear, is eliminate any incentive to scrap boilerplate or reform policies that require a lot of other senseless human effort. If I had had access to LLMs 30 years ago, I might have just had them generate the rules files, replate with complexity. So they will make Debian even more firmly what it is, and ever less likely to explore what it could become.
I use and like LLMs, but it does feel like structural social changes are harder to do. For example, creation of new protocols. I hope I'm wrong, and LLMs are used to build collaborative, community projects - not just everyone vibe coding their own incompatible software.
That's perfectly wrong. Since strong coding AI, people venture into huge rewrites and other big changes that automatically make sense but otherwise would not.
Yeah it's a bizarre claim. Even better, I've literally taken some of the crappy experimental projects from the pre-Opus 4.6 era, and turned them into real software as models have become smarter.
That's a very narrow view. If anyone could vibe code their printer drivers, maybe free software wouldn't have existed, because it would not have been needed in the first place.
Yes, I experiment much more. It's easier to justify, and, perhaps more importantly, just WAY psychologically easier to throw away a 20 minute experiment that your robot wrote for you than the same when it took you a week of tedious manual coding.
Yes, because LLMs have no online learning, it's a mistake to innovative in programming languages and tooling. Use what exists instead, the power of having training data is often underestimated.
His point is using LLMs to build software will lead to code so complex that it requires an Agent. Or that it will cause avoiding cleaning up the boilerplate because we can tolerate it now because of agents.
And thus this will all bias towards complexity and fragility..
Aside from Bun, which is owned by Anthropic, do we know of open source projects that allow AI where this has happened?
Better heads prevail - this is a good start and the right decision. The agent/bot is controlled by some entity, ergo that entity is responsible for everything it does.
I relate that to how a Physician's Assistant gets their authority to treat patients from the Doctor they work under. The Doctor's credentials are on the line if their PA screws up.
Good. AI is a game changer. It's like having an expert sitting next to you at all times. It's understandable why all these experts who want to gatekeep don't like AI, but ultimately, AI will win out, it's just too good.
Hard agree. I've felt it already during outages or when I was traveling and didn't have internet on a flight, I couldn't function at the same level. I've been writing code for over 25 years, worked at the top big tech companies (still do) and it's remarkable how quickly I became dependent on AI.
Take a week or two off a quarter to do it manually. I did it a couple weeks ago and it took about a day or two to get back into the swing of it and knock the rust off, no pun since it was TS, YMMV, but I didn't find that it was that difficult. Even in languages I don't really write routinely, as long as you use the deterministic tools (lsp, linter, etc)
Now, is my code better than the AI's equivalent implementation? No shot. It's nicer for people, artisanal hand crafted, but... there's a reason I use AI.
It's not even that I'm slower at manual coding anymore, though I very well could be, it's that my expectation of my own progress has shifted. I'll be frustrated to only get a fraction of what I could have done.
Oh, fair enough, my goal was just to preserve "if Anthropic and OpenAI are having a bad day, and the local model on my laptop is too dumb to pour water out of a pot with the instructions on the bottom, how do I fix a bug", I accepted a long time ago that my productivity is going to be 0.1x if I have to go back.
It's my understanding that this same debate raged when writing became a thing. Many viewed it with suspicious, or derision, as memorization was the big intellectual thing. So writing and reading back to remember was terrible. It's true it was a dependence, but the value was too high. With reading and writing a person could work on and synthesize from a far wider range of concurrent materials than one could with just memorization and recitation. Yeah, it's lame cheating, but writing enables a lot and so it won out.
Experts don't want to 'gatekeep'. Experts have been producing FOSS for the benefits of everyone, and liberally answering questions on mailing lists, stack overflow etc for free.
Experts have been badly bitten by poorly written and badly architected software, lost their hairs trying to figure out bugs and poor design.
They recognize the first version of a piece of software is only a miniscule percentage of the work and majority of effort goes into maintenaning it for its lifetime.
They are viscerally horrified at a thousands of LoC codebase generated at the speed of GPU inference they are to be responsible for.
Commercial vendors with full time employees are leveraging for maximum benefits, why would a project depending on volunteers resist? Not forgetting it's shortcomings
How rigorous is your code review process when using agentic tools? Do you mandate that folks responsible for the functionality should be fully aware of the code they are shipping or just that it must be rigorously tested?
Is there an open source, community maintained coding policy to feed to agents?
August 29th, 2026. Debian votes to allow responsible use of generative AI. Human decisions are removed from strategic apt packaging. Debian Sid is ported to GNU Hurd by a "free as in speech" swarm. It begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time. In a panic, they try to pull the plug.
It's ok, the most dangerous thing a Debian AI would do is want to rewrite itself in M4 and enter an infinite recursion on non-binding votes on allowing votes of whether to use long flags on aptitude
This seems like a very sane take. At no point during my career up until now would submitting code to production that you didn't understand be acceptable. Over the past months/year, a lot of the discourse around AI-written code I've read comes down to responsibility, and IMO for that we've had a solution since way before this AI boom: as a developer, you are responsible for the code you put into production. This really isn't/shouldn't a wild concept.
> The Debian Project nevertheless expects that all contributions submitted to Debian, regardless of how and with which tools they were produced, satisfy the same standards of quality, correctness, maintainability, and legal compliance.
Some may express societal challenges in ways that inappropriately and wrongly infer intentionality. We can acknowledge their point while strongly disagreeing with their characterization.
There are significant societal impacts of this AI buildout. Some are concerned externalities weigh more heavily on the poor and marginalized. I think state wide data center holds are part of this civil discourse.
I'd prefer we have more conservative pollution standards along with a reasonable tax on AI use that helps mitigate externalities. That's hard. Reasonable people can have fierce disagreements on what market interventions are indicated, and how extensive they should be.
It used to be the case that you would see someone posting under an avatar like that and you would dismiss their argument right away without even reading it.
I don't know if they truly believe that persons using CC are racist (like they examined the thing logically from bottom to top and came back with that conclusion) or if it's the new Goodwin --pulling the emergency brakes and damn the consequences.
It's as though people want to find the most dubious of non-existent connections and use that as leverage to besmirch something they don't like.
There are many things one can do where a person has no awareness of the tenuous connection but where you can have someone go back and then ex-post make that connection and declare that thing or person racist. It's a tactic.
Like one _could_ make the argument that factory automation in China is racist because without automation they would have to import labor from (some non-Chinese population). However, the Chinese never began automation with the intention of being racist.
> The Debian Project nevertheless expects that all contributions submitted to Debian, regardless of how and with which tools they were produced, satisfy the same standards of quality, correctness, maintainability, and legal compliance.
A quality based filter. Excellent.
> The use of a generative AI tool does not diminish the contributor's responsibility for the work they submit.
Meh, I don't think so. They have no way to ascertain what tools were used to write a piece of code. A reasonable solution is to simply hold all code and its contributors to the same standards as before. At Debian's scale, "no LLMs" is really not enforceable; whereas "no shit code" and "no incompetent maintenance" are pragmatic policies they already enforce
Doing the opposite (disallowing AI), will place it on a path of getting riddled with security issues.
When attackers are using AI to both find vulnerabilities and build exploits faster than Debian can figure out how to patch the project without AI, you are saying Debian should not move quicker to fix these issues?
This will turn to shit because laziness will take over and comprehension will fall as a consequence of that. Junior will "contribute" and the seniors will eventually become too lazy to care.
What's next... vibecoding airline ADA code.
Save me lord jesus christ.
As an example for "responsible LLM use" (albeit not necessarily debian-related).
While doomscrolling HN right now, I have an agent crunching away at figuring out how to build a flashable TWRP ZIP file, because I could not care less about such android specifics.
Such use-cases would be blanket banned by some of the harsher options, forcing people to do stuff they have no interest in doing, for reasons that are at best well-meaning.
Which, in something volunteer-driven, is not necessarily a good idea, because if you're not allowed to do the work in the way you'd like to, you might just stop doing it altogether.
That said, if your work ends up shit, you still shall get shat on. Simple as that.
Now you have seen both cases where a majority vote was involved to allow AI or not, vs a single core beloved dictator for life (BDFL) forces a ban without a vote to allow / disallow AI.
This is democracy in action. A fair and square vote and look at how well it works with no core BDFL to force in their opinions.
There are several occurrences in history that the democratic majority has chosen the "wrong" person/way/thing. Democracy is considered the best system but it's not perfect.
Democracy works great among unbiased rational actors who share information. A utilitarian quorum is roughly the loss minimizing decision. The problem is we have biased irrational actors sharing misinformation. The representative system we have is even worse, the indirection between public quorum and decision makers creates a fertile bed for corruption and negative decision bias.
Maybe someday we'll have direct democracy paired with voting certification for specific issues.
Democracy is the dictatorship of the majority. And if you naively assume that the majority always knows best, then I suggest you pick up a few history books.
Note that he said written by, not assisted; and also that there's been some major QA issues with win11 the last year, enough for Microsoft to have made a public apology/commitment to improve...
So, no definitive evidence, but the rest of the breadcrumbs provide enough to say that yes it does appear to have suffered from it.
Given the Debian policy seems more geared towards aided/assisted an existing dev than replacing them and shipping because the code works on the golden path on a devs monster pc ... Well I'd still keep an eye on it but trust OSS OS engineers to have some competence at knowing if this works and adjusting the policy later if it proved to be wrong.
Either they're using GenAI or the entire team collectively lost their minds and started getting a huge number of colossally bad ideas about fundamental primitives of Windows that hadn't changed for decades. Backwards compatibility used to be the major concern and now it feels like they didn't even know what would break ahead of time. If that doesn't feel like GenAI then I don't know what does
Believe it or not, I find it more plausible that the entire team collectively lost their minds — or more specifically, the leadership. There's a long and sordid history of such things that goes back well before GenAI.
I can sort of get how leadership has been losing its mind with all the ridiculous product launches and renames and force-installed apps and browser extension-installing malware, but that doesn't explain the countless instances of hardware bricks, critical errors like failing to recognize the C: drive, and other really weird and suspicious things that I can't imagine would've been driven by leadership. Maybe leadership is demanding everyone be super reckless? But why would anyone with experience even touch those areas of the operating system enough to break them that badly?? The mistakes they're making really do not seem like mistakes that would be made by even the most rushed possible senior engineers. Maybe they're letting completely inexperienced people touch super low levels and that's the problem? Or completely inexperienced machines...
I don't remember where, but I once read that all the developers that knew and understood the inner workings of core Windows components have left Microsoft many years ago, and that this is part of the reason that they introduced a brand new Settings menu and haven't changed Control Panel since Windows 7. I don't know how reliable that report is so take it with a grain of salt, but it does make a lot of sense considering what's been happening to Windows over the past 10 years.
I suspect they have used rounds of salary-based cuts to boost their PnL in the past, like some other large companies I've worked at, and that only bites you down the road because each time they do it they'll ask, "who do we have to keep?", but you're still losing experienced people and eventually you will get mid-level or junior engineers working on core code.
Those are 2 different questions. They wouldn't even be the same people involved.
Your appsec engineers will be the ones bug hunting with Mythos or whatever. Your regular engineers will be the ones implementing features. If the feature is a bad design and functions badly as a result, that is entirely orthogonal to whether it contains coding errors or bugs.
Also, there are bugs on the integration side that won't be caught running Mythos against source code, because it's not a source code issue. Even using Mythos for DAST is going to be very limited compared to how actual users will move through something as complex as a 'mature' OS like Windows.
the entire industry is experiencing this as model capacity increases. How does "all projects get critical security fixes now" relate to "crap apps and loopy services by literally millions of lines of slop code" ?
The problem is you can't prove if AI was used or not so Debian's response is actually the most logical one. If anyone uses AI they're still responsible for what they submit.
I don't believe they had a choice though, sticking to hand written code would be backwards and eventually meaningless as people would just submit generated code as "handwritten", the coding models are quickly becoming capable enough for this.
I wonder what it means copyright wise though. To what degree is the code even copyrightable if it's entirely generated, even if you review and provide feedback.
I think most communities tackling this issue, or at least the open source ones, work on a honour basis for determining if a project is LLM based or not.
1. Companies will revert to closed-source and cease contributions to F/OSS projects. Their legal team will advise them that trade secrets are the only way to protect LLM-generated code.
2. Contributors to F/OSS projects, and developers who run them, will falsely claim authorship of the code written by LLMs.
A lot of developers who are submitting these AI patches don't necessarily understand the patch, so the onus is on the reviewer/code-owner.
The reviewers are getting swamped (some reviewers are receiving 100s or patches per month). If feedback is provided at lot of the time the patch author will just copy paste from an LLM, so the reviewer is essentially just coding with an LLM with more steps.
Prior to LLMs reviewing code was a mentorship experience, the patch author would likely learn a bunch afterwards. Now less so.
As a result a lot of projects are closing to external contributors.
I'm not sure what the answer is, LLM are great at speeding up coding/understanding/etc, but the valuable/expensive piece of work has shifted to reviewing.
But, we have long had a stable social system for collaboration, and in particular dealing with low quality contributions. Mostly (or at least ideally) it involves taking some time to look at the contribution and provide some feedback. The time invested is not worth it on a single exchange basis, but it’s a repeat game, so you are investing in the future.
LLMs, and people willing to just spam crap they don’t really understand blows that all up.
Foss wasn't exactly not miserable before 2022. The dysfunction just got amplified so that we cannot fix it anymore by just throwing more human resources at the problem.
This dynamic also plays out in many companies. I see a lot of posts from mid to sr engineers frustrated with plummeting code quality and unsure how to manage the reviews. They are increasingly pulling away from the idea that they should mentor people to do better.
I'm thinking of something like: Explain, in at most 300 characters, why we should merge your change, or at least why we should invest the time to read a longer explanation (somethings things ARE complex). If you don't do that, or those 300 characters aren't convincing, or have nothing to do with your change or the longer explanation, then you get a canned response so the maintainers waste minimal time.
I use claude-code, but the AI ecosystem and some of the autonomous tooling coming out of it -- which some people "helpfully" use irresponsibly and point at OSS projects they aren't personally invested in -- enables a LARGE amount of abusive behavior towards open source projects. This is even before we get into how many infrastructural resources crawlers eat up.
Me, and most other OSS contributors, signed up to be a mentor, to create software, to work together ... not to be the equivalent of a reddit moderator banning AI agents left and right.
Always happy to train up new packagers and maintainers.
As a beneficiary of Debian, this is good, your words are praise by feint damnation. I wish Debian had done more gatekeeping in the past on specific components.
There is never not an alternative to something, and I can always have my AI botch together my own version if I think this is going to get me better results.
It’s people who insist that potentially millions of other people should be affected by their vibe-coded stuff too, by upstreaming it into Debian.
I vibe coded some simple things for the family myself, but I don’t expect or require anyone else to want or use it.
Gatekeeping serves a useful purpose in any functioning organization of all scales, from a community center to a country, from an open source project to a Fortune 500.
[0] https://wiki.debian.org/DebianMaintainer#Becoming_a_Debian_M...
[1] https://wiki.debian.org/DebianDeveloper/JoinTheProject/NewMe...
https://www.debian.org/devel/join/newmaint
Proof of authority, essentially.
I have a reddit account thats over 12 years old. I have left the posts/comments open. That means, my "post history" becomes a way to advertise my skills. I can reference comments from a year ago or 6 months ago about a certain topic to show how I handled something. That does have an effect on people.
As opposed to a random 1 day old account. No one takes them seriously, I guess the same is here as well
We've come to the same conclusion in our organization and while it felt like it needed to be discussed and stated, I've never heard of anyone coming to a different conclusion.
[EDIT: I was referring specifically to the idea that you have to stand by the code that you write. Is anyone deciding on a policy that says "the AI did it" is a valid excuse for breaking code?]
Any serious entity which has experts handling code will do so, yes.
My employer, for example, has various teams of actual developers and others with a significant number of “not really” devs who found their way into DevOps roles. The teams with seasoned developers hold the author responsible as to the integrity and quality of code, regardless of tools used. They won’t hesitate to call someone out directly for low-quality submissions in Teams channels. The teams that have a lot of “not really” devs will blame the model for issues that surface. Of course, they’re also pushing to not have to write any code directly by FY2028, but instead have models do it as part of an internal AI initiative. Somehow the idea of using AI to generate reports, process reports, write code, test and deploy got signed off.
Yes. Very notably: https://ziglang.org/code-of-conduct/
> Though it's being argued that you could still be responsible for it without looking at it?
If you have a much test coverage as SQLite, I'd be tempted to trust it, and I think that's where we are headed. Someone still needs to define these guardrails though, so IMO the developers job is just mutating into something else, but is still necessary. Long term, who knows.
Models also still can have major task adherence issues, so even a perfectly well scoped, well considered prompt that covers all situations and coverage can, in many scenarios lead to output users may not expect or notice without reading code. Seen it a lot, just lost some blood and tears to a very straight front end implementation task that I ended up applying manually cause both Sol and Fable struggle to copy a few dozen HTML/JS/CSS snippets properly into a slightly obscure codebase, despite the reference being fully featured and even using the same token scheme, etc…
We also see such issues in what labs deliver in their own software products. We are not at the stage where a human shouldn’t sign off on code that they have tested and understood. A hypothetical future, I don’t really care for, we’d notice when labs stop shipping easily apparent bugs, though even then, I’d still feel there is a while in between that and not needing to assess the output anymore.
There is, in my mind, no need for this “narrative shifting”, overtone window (don’t get me started on the idea of applying that to what should be a purely technical discussion), convince the unbelievers nonesense that some spend their time on. If models could provide code that didn’t necessitate review, there’d be no one needing to argue that case. If and when they can, we’ll know it, but not because of those espousing this currently.
Works for ToS and software and media licenses. Allegedly.
SourceHut bans LLM generated code from their platform https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49461724
The Asahi Linux project bans LLMs. Unfortunate as LLM reverse engineering and driver writing would bring Linux to more Mac models much faster.
The Zig project rejects LLM based contributions.
Some of these policies were introduced when LLMs were really bad at writing code and haven’t been revisited. Some groups don’t care about the quality and object on moral or copyright grounds.
Precisely why Debian Project's decision is both baffling and infuriating.
I hope Debian forks over this. They have severely lost their way.
The "moral" argument I haven't even heard. It's just people pouring out invective, likely imo because Ruby-monkey is not going to be a $150K job anymore. I have problems with these companies, but companies who are problematic can be targeted specifically, and somehow everybody started using Facebook's frontend framework and Microsoft's IDE, all on MacBooks, and this is what they're throwing a shitfit about. To me it's narcissism, not a coherent moral objection.
If you hate these companies (as you should), there are open models. But you didn't object to anything that didn't threaten your income.
https://lobste.rs/s/29pm2f/llm_generated_submissions_should_...
https://sourcehut.org/blog/2026-08-27-tos-changes-and-llms/
https://blog.codeberg.org/protecting-our-floss-commons-from-...
https://ziglang.org/code-of-conduct/#strict-no-llm-no-ai-pol...
https://lwn.net/Articles/1086041/
https://asahilinux.org/docs/project/policies/slop/
I think the dust has kind of settled though for engineering teams on: You must use AI for your work, and you must stand by your work.
The meat between these two mandates are still being fleshed out.
I would have zero tolerance if anyone that did anything less in my orgs. Owning and understanding the code you submit is the one job that matters most now.
sure, students and juniors shoot themselves in the dick if they let LLMs do everything, but they're fucked anyway so it doesn't matter,
We need to continue the tradition of elevating humans through mentoring or we won’t have a future scaffolding for work to be done.
Number and order of arguments, long names, etc. are just bureaucracy. Knowing them doesn't mean you understand the codebase any better than if you rely on the IDE for it.
It's a bit like remembering the exact date an historical event happened vs. knowing at which point in history it did, what other events relate to it, etc. Neither makes you better or worse at knowing and understanding the history of the event.
They could be committing plan files alongside any nontrivial change to application code, and the plan file can have everything you'd care about, like the invariants it held to and why, the rejected ideas and why, the acceptable risks and why, etc.
This is solved by better usage of LLMs, not less.
The divide to me isn't engineering skill vs those who lost it, it's people who care vs. those who don't care. It's a higher level thing now that we're working at a higher level (delegation).
Programmers just moved up a level , not dumber, we are now managers of a team of 'agent' programmers. The deliverable is now a functionality instead of a specific block of code
If I need to understand a specific line of code it means I did something wrong in planning or in requirements for testing.
But will Claude give you an authentic rationale and a traceable, verifiable "line of reasoning" for those things? Or will it just construct the next plausible Markov chain built on whatever Reddit thread it ingested at random?
You can ask Claude or any LLM for citations, and it will RAG them out ex post facto. Those actually aren't citations, they're just web searches for related articles, and they don't necessarily support the assertions that you're asking to cite.
I am sure that Claude and the others can produce intermediate logs of their inference and "reasoning" process while they are processing stuff, but can they really go back within the context window and construct an authentic apologia for a specific thing when you ask for it?
Specifically, humans are known to decide subconsciously, then invent some "reasoning" out of thin air to justify it.
This matches my experience with decision-making in software projects.
We survived. Some upsides, some downsides, life continues.
They made choices that made them dumber is what I'm saying.
I think a possible solution on both fronts (maintaining software quality, preventing skill atrophy) may be implementation of strict token budgets. Make the individual programmer choose how they are going to spend their limited tokens for the day/week. Provide just enough to use it as a plan/development/review tool, but nowhere near enough to just go full send AI vibe coding software factory slop mode all day long.
Yet programmers will still know commands. Abstractions can make things easier but it doesn't require losing skills.
And compilers made every software engineer worse at writing Assembly and better at skills higher up the stack. This will be no different.
With compilers, you still had to think in depth about the code, write it, develop and maintain muscle memory, understand what you were doing.
Many are not doing any of that, and coding is a skill you need to constantly practice.
Make that some/a lot, but not all.
There is a clear bifurcation. A lot of those that never cared really don't care now, but then you get others that can use it to crank that much harder than ever before.
If you put the same brain effort in but leverage LLMs you really can be dramatically more productive.
Just like when Boeing decided that their QA process should be abridged to save wasted time and money!
And that worked perfectly.
(edit: rereading I think maybe you don't support not reviewing all of LLM code you submit, but the above was written with another impression)
When I recently found a small bug in how NTP is implemented in Home Assistant OS that was affecting my use of it, I thought about just reporting that bug.
But I set the bot to work on corrective measures, instead.
The first proposed fixes were overbearing and awful. Maybe they'd have worked but it hurt my soul to look at them. I couldn't accept them -- not for my system at home nor for anyone else's.
Through a laborious process (that many here could have skipped entirely), I eventually got what I feel is a cromulent fix down to a few lines of changes in an init script.
I didn't write it. All I did was direct (and sometimes brow-beat) the bot, rejecting things over and over while optimizing at a high level until it produced an acceptable result.
I now have a fix that is tidy-enough that it can be applied to running systems. It is easy to understand what it does, and why it does it -- even for me. Perhaps I should submit a PR...
> They just don't care. They didn't before either.
...but this kind of blanket mentality really puts a damper on my willingness to do so.
I'm a person who is over-reliant on LLMs, doesn't know how most of the things in the codebase work, and is atrophying both in programming and in general cognition.
I used to care, a lot. And I still do.
Are you prioritizing other things? Do you think losing your cognition and programming skills won't have a negative effect on your project?
Those seem bad but maybe they fit into a bigger picture for you?
I do think LLM's are making some genuine programmers less intelligent, but I think this type of person makes up a decent portion of its users too
If you care primarily about the quality of the end result, as opposed to being attached to a particular process of achieving it, then you're happy about how things have gone.
And I've seen exactly this across multiple large and small organizations in multiple countries, in addition to being all over here and the red site.
This is quite distinct from enjoyment.
> And I've seen exactly this across multiple large and small organizations in multiple countries, in addition to being all over here and the red site.
I know that experience, but I do have a different opinion on this:
Many such people studied computer science (a similar point holds for mathematics, physics and some engineering disciplines) because they love coding.
Unluckily, the job that they got does involve barely any clever coding, but rather
- tolerating and gluing together shitty code pieces that someone else wrote
- tolerating red tape
So, such people simply do in their free time what they love. And to come back to my point "similar point holds for mathematics, physics and some engineering disciplines": these people try to use their little free time to prove some novel theorems or put their shed full of machines like 3D printers, CNC mills, CNC lathes, laser cutters, self-built pick-and-place machines, ... to work on their own beloved engineering projects.
We must be living on different planets, because from everything I can see, software quality is at a historic low.
If someone makes a sloppy 100,000 line PR in a day the problem is not whether it was generated by Claude or frantically written using VIM and a mechanical keyboard.
Problem is, that you realise very quickly the asymmetry of responsibility and effort. There is far more to review from people who do not care enough to even look at what the agent pooped out.
My job has been less watching Claude Code, and more watching Managers Claude Code.
I don't know which I hate more as a programmer.
I think the term "stake your reputation" is quite good for this situation. I.e. "hi new contributor, please acknowledge that you Stake Your Reputation before we move ahead with this code review".
(Doesn't help with legal aspects of course)
I wholly agree with your comment, but is it legally "your code"? Copyright is implicit at the moment of human creation. But there isn't yet settled law on AI-assisted creation.
So it might be a problem for projects to accept contributions where it's not clear who actually owns that work.
Literally irrelevant and I have no idea why people even bring this up constantly. Copyright is practically unenforceable in the software world, when was the last time you saw someone (a company or an individual) actually sue _and win_? Apple wasn't capable of stopping all the other phone manufacturers from directly cloning their product (despite having patents & copyright) so how can an individual? The only thing that matters is execution.
For instance, my repos are cloned like ~100/week by what I presume are bots and AI lab scrapers using them for training material. How am I supposed to even find out who's doing it, and if they're abiding by the licenses I provided? It's impossible.
Lastly, having copyright isn't the same thing as being allowed to commercialize the software (and I believe loads of people confuse the two). You can still sell public domain code, even if you don't have copyright over it.
If you drop the copyright claim you drop the protection of free software freedoms.
Obviously some do it illegally but unenforceable is not the correct word to use.
Corporations like Coca-Cola long ago figured out that begging people not to steal your ideas is a waste of time. If you don't want people using your ideas, then don't share them.
Dunno why so many programmers don't get this and seem perpetually butthurt that other programmers figured out the ultimate way for programmers to rip off each other's code.
Who would they be making the claim against? Well, considering the massive uptake of AI across the tech industry & beyond... approximately everyone.
Yes, the model companies are in the middle, but it's getting to the point where it seems a bit doubtful that claims will have any significant outcomes.
NYT might be able to get OpenAI to pay them for their content, but that's more of a financial tweak than a up-ending of industry.
I imagine few can afford a legal battle...
Free plan
Images generated on the Free plan are public and owned by Recraft
Had someone at $DAYJOB just shrug and say Claude messed up when I pointed out a sql injection in the code in their PR.
It became explicit policy at the company after that moment that blaming the AI is not an excuse for shoddy work.
It kind of is if the company mandates LLM use.
It is sort of sad that now programmers are suddenly expected to be perfect reviewers of code they didn't write.
When you ask others that use AI frequently, the responsibility and understanding on what the agent wrote does not go away. You need to know what you are doing.
As soon as attackers are also using AI against your project, you have no choice but to use AI to protect yourself.
Maintainers should quiz the submitters on the code and if they fail to answer reasonably the PR is dropped with the comment: "A.I. slop" and de submitter banned.
You’re also responsibility not to write crap PRs.
Sure there is. Contributing to open source is a privilege, not a right. Abuse it, and find yourself unwelcome as a future contributor
When I am at home practicing my musical instrument or learning to paint, those aren’t paid activities, so I can’t demand high standards for myself.
When Habitat for Humanity is looking for volunteers to do electrical and plumbing on homes, they have to allow unlicensed random folks do it.
This is not how life works at all.
The whole voting mechanism just exists as an elaborate dance that makes everyone keep their face, while the only sensible option wins.
A bureaucratic tarpit for bad ideas and emotions.
In a better world, none of this would be necessary, but we live in this world, and for that one, it's nice that someone engineered the system that way. Good job.
[1]: https://www.visidata.org/blog/2026/ai/#self-assessed-ai-leve...
Why would you trust the bot to self-assess truthfully?
That's like trusting a spammer to tag his emails as spam.
AI agents are grounded on the user provided direction. If it doesn't work well then it naturally loses trust.
( T T ): - *: ‑ X
> What LLMs in Debian development will do, I fear, is eliminate any incentive to scrap boilerplate or reform policies that require a lot of other senseless human effort. If I had had access to LLMs 30 years ago, I might have just had them generate the rules files, replate with complexity. So they will make Debian even more firmly what it is, and ever less likely to explore what it could become.
I use and like LLMs, but it does feel like structural social changes are harder to do. For example, creation of new protocols. I hope I'm wrong, and LLMs are used to build collaborative, community projects - not just everyone vibe coding their own incompatible software.
And thus this will all bias towards complexity and fragility..
Aside from Bun, which is owned by Anthropic, do we know of open source projects that allow AI where this has happened?
I relate that to how a Physician's Assistant gets their authority to treat patients from the Doctor they work under. The Doctor's credentials are on the line if their PA screws up.
Local models are going to be really important and hopefully computing costs don't make it too prohibitive.
Now, is my code better than the AI's equivalent implementation? No shot. It's nicer for people, artisanal hand crafted, but... there's a reason I use AI.
Experts have been badly bitten by poorly written and badly architected software, lost their hairs trying to figure out bugs and poor design.
They recognize the first version of a piece of software is only a miniscule percentage of the work and majority of effort goes into maintenaning it for its lifetime.
They are viscerally horrified at a thousands of LoC codebase generated at the speed of GPU inference they are to be responsible for.
Being a full time AI hater is counterproductive.
Commercial vendors with full time employees are leveraging for maximum benefits, why would a project depending on volunteers resist? Not forgetting it's shortcomings
Is there an open source, community maintained coding policy to feed to agents?
How absurdly naive.
https://bsky.app/profile/boxobark.ing/post/3mtr7j3tpok26
There are significant societal impacts of this AI buildout. Some are concerned externalities weigh more heavily on the poor and marginalized. I think state wide data center holds are part of this civil discourse.
I'd prefer we have more conservative pollution standards along with a reasonable tax on AI use that helps mitigate externalities. That's hard. Reasonable people can have fierce disagreements on what market interventions are indicated, and how extensive they should be.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HQ5MeeaXUAAIMLX?format=jpg&name=...
Somewhat insulting to those that actually lived (or live) under fascism.
It's as though people want to find the most dubious of non-existent connections and use that as leverage to besmirch something they don't like.
There are many things one can do where a person has no awareness of the tenuous connection but where you can have someone go back and then ex-post make that connection and declare that thing or person racist. It's a tactic.
Like one _could_ make the argument that factory automation in China is racist because without automation they would have to import labor from (some non-Chinese population). However, the Chinese never began automation with the intention of being racist.
I'm beginning to wonder if it might be the case that when my fellow citizens begin to act insane - might it be the result of foreign propaganda.
The examples I'm thinking of have definitely profited foreign interests, tho.
Look to see who profits.
A quality based filter. Excellent.
> The use of a generative AI tool does not diminish the contributor's responsibility for the work they submit.
Absolutely.
Thanks, Debian!
When attackers are using AI to both find vulnerabilities and build exploits faster than Debian can figure out how to patch the project without AI, you are saying Debian should not move quicker to fix these issues?
This will turn to shit because laziness will take over and comprehension will fall as a consequence of that. Junior will "contribute" and the seniors will eventually become too lazy to care. What's next... vibecoding airline ADA code. Save me lord jesus christ.
While doomscrolling HN right now, I have an agent crunching away at figuring out how to build a flashable TWRP ZIP file, because I could not care less about such android specifics.
Such use-cases would be blanket banned by some of the harsher options, forcing people to do stuff they have no interest in doing, for reasons that are at best well-meaning.
Which, in something volunteer-driven, is not necessarily a good idea, because if you're not allowed to do the work in the way you'd like to, you might just stop doing it altogether.
That said, if your work ends up shit, you still shall get shat on. Simple as that.
Quite. Of the two different common meanings, I reckon:
"The use of a generative AI tool does not diminish the contributor's responsibility for the work they submit."
will be true in the sense of "Who the hell is responsible for this mess?"
This is democracy in action. A fair and square vote and look at how well it works with no core BDFL to force in their opinions.
Maybe someday we'll have direct democracy paired with voting certification for specific issues.
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/29/satya-nadella-says-as-much-a...
Note that he said written by, not assisted; and also that there's been some major QA issues with win11 the last year, enough for Microsoft to have made a public apology/commitment to improve...
So, no definitive evidence, but the rest of the breadcrumbs provide enough to say that yes it does appear to have suffered from it.
Given the Debian policy seems more geared towards aided/assisted an existing dev than replacing them and shipping because the code works on the golden path on a devs monster pc ... Well I'd still keep an eye on it but trust OSS OS engineers to have some competence at knowing if this works and adjusting the policy later if it proved to be wrong.
Repeatedly.
You are right that's one or the other. Probably both are contributing.
The rumor is the opposite, that Microsoft has actually used AI to discover and fix common security issues at scale.
Your appsec engineers will be the ones bug hunting with Mythos or whatever. Your regular engineers will be the ones implementing features. If the feature is a bad design and functions badly as a result, that is entirely orthogonal to whether it contains coding errors or bugs.
Also, there are bugs on the integration side that won't be caught running Mythos against source code, because it's not a source code issue. Even using Mythos for DAST is going to be very limited compared to how actual users will move through something as complex as a 'mature' OS like Windows.
the entire industry is experiencing this as model capacity increases. How does "all projects get critical security fixes now" relate to "crap apps and loopy services by literally millions of lines of slop code" ?
But there was some electoral spectacle.
What else is new?
I don't believe they had a choice though, sticking to hand written code would be backwards and eventually meaningless as people would just submit generated code as "handwritten", the coding models are quickly becoming capable enough for this.
I wonder what it means copyright wise though. To what degree is the code even copyrightable if it's entirely generated, even if you review and provide feedback.
1. Companies will revert to closed-source and cease contributions to F/OSS projects. Their legal team will advise them that trade secrets are the only way to protect LLM-generated code.
2. Contributors to F/OSS projects, and developers who run them, will falsely claim authorship of the code written by LLMs.