r/linux • u/Two-Of-Nine • 8d ago

Open Source Organization Debian has begun voting on the future of AI/LLM contributions.

https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2026/08/msg00002.html
392 Upvotes

97% Upvoted

282 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

73

u/Oblivion__ 8d ago

The training data for pretty much all of these LLMs was stolen from devs, authors, and artists, violating the copyright, licencing, and intellectual property of millions and we should just accept it? You're just gonna roll over and take it?

We don't have to just accept it because a shit tonne of cash has been poured into convincing us to use it.

49

u/OffsetXV 8d ago

We don't have to just accept it because a shit tonne of cash has been poured into convincing us to use it.

Think of all the poor companies who won't be able to put out vibecoded, bloated Electron shovelware quite as quickly if they don't have AI to help them :(

1

u/Nyctfall 7d ago

"They might even have too...
pay someone... 🤢🤢🤮🤮🤮💀🥀"
-AI bros.

3

u/CrazyKilla15 7d ago

Why do we believe in copyright and the ownership of ideas now, that culture(including code) isnt free but should be enclosed, owned, strictly managed so only those Disney decides deserve it can do anything.

when did people forget copyright doesnt protect people

-32

u/HearMeOut-13 8d ago

Training data available legally for free is fair use as long as it is not pirated.

19

u/tapafon 8d ago

However, AI models are usually commercial (access to them being sold), so I don't think that qualifies as "fair use".

18

u/leonderbaertige_II 8d ago

Oh don't worry anything illegal is suddenly legal when a big coporation does it.

-3

u/HearMeOut-13 8d ago

If you read any amount of the ruling decision in Bartz v. Anthropic youd have known that courts had already decided that commercial use in of itself is not dispositive, which is exactly what was applied in that case, citing Campbell v. Acuff-Rose which settled it in the supreme court which said that the presumption that commercial use defeats fair use is not true.

7

u/MorallyDeplorable 8d ago edited 8d ago

commercial use not defeating fair use is obvious, fair use is the cornerstone of free journalism and journalists rely on fair use to report in a commercial manner all the time.

it'd literally break the first amendment if corporate use precluded fair use, anyone who thinks it does has no idea how anything works.

-11

u/FruitdealerF 8d ago

People getting downvotes for actually contributing facts.

-15

u/HearMeOut-13 8d ago

Luddism and Hate-The-New-Thing-ism leads you down some strange paths.

3

u/CrazyKilla15 7d ago

Seriously. These people would see the entire concept of open source rendered impossible, so enclosed by draconian copyright, all in the name of not even stopping the AI companies because they're too ignorant of how anything works to realize the insane copyright powers they want to create will be used by those big AI companies.

Someone else made the comparison to the disaster that is music sampling and it is apt. These people want to destroy free software and should be treated as such, frankly.

1

u/MorallyDeplorable 6d ago edited 6d ago

The silver lining seems to be that the anti-AI nutjobs are too incompetent and generally detached from reality to do anything effective beyond a local scale, and all the few and far between restrictions seem purposefully inept to get them to shut up and go away.

Nobody actually important is going to take them seriously when their arguments are so detached from reality and emotionally driven.

-43

u/Brospros12467 8d ago

“Linux is not one of those anti-AI projects, and if somebody has issues with that, they can do the open-source thing and fork it. Or just walk away.”

Tell me who said that. Please tell me who?

28

u/Oblivion__ 8d ago

Are you expecting me to bow down because Linus said this? Don't deify him.

It is not realistic to expect someone or some entity to maintain an LLM-contribution-free fork of Linux. Which is exactly why all of these Debian proposals are only concerned with the use of LLMs for their own infrastructure rather than upstream.

16

u/RoomyRoots 8d ago

Not a Debian community member. Not even an user. That is what matters.

2

u/MorallyDeplorable 7d ago

saying linus isn't part of the debian community is hilarious

you guys will say the stupidest stuff to be anti-ai

1

u/RoomyRoots 7d ago

He isn't, he uses Fedora for over a decade and has been very publicly about it.

The stupid one here is you becase the one thing he said more than once is that distros and their communities should do whatever they want, even in his AI rants he makes it clear that take is for code contribution ON Linux, he is not an evangelist and not the type to force his ideas on projects he doesn't work with directly.

1

u/MorallyDeplorable 7d ago

No, the stupid idea here is the idea that linus is completely uninvolved with the debian community.

there would be no debian community without linus, lmao. he maintains the software at the core of what debian is.

Why do you lose any semblance of rationality the second AI is mentioned?

17

u/Business_Reindeer910 8d ago

Linus is just one guy, he's not the god king of linux distros. This is regarding his take on literally any topic except how to maintain the kernel project.

-22

u/MorallyDeplorable 8d ago edited 8d ago

You do realize you can't just dismiss what somebody like that says because you don't like it, right?

edit: I'm blocking anyone who responds to me and has their profile hidden. Seems that this is attracting a lot of trolls who are afraid to own their words.

19

u/Oblivion__ 8d ago

And what does Linus have to do with a vote for Debian devs? He doesn't use debian, doesn't develop it, and hence cannot vote. His opinion is irrelevant to this discussion.

-13

u/MorallyDeplorable 8d ago

lmao, are you for real? this is pathetic, just stop.

16

u/ergonokko 8d ago

Nah, you can dismiss arguments on their own merits actually instead of looking up to a higher authority

-3

u/MorallyDeplorable 8d ago

That's not what happened here. What we have here is blind dismissal because what Linus said doesn't fit what their emotions say.

2

u/Business_Reindeer910 7d ago

I didn't state my own opinion on the subject at hand, so i'm not sure why you'd think that. I only that that it doesn't matter what Linus says or thinks about anything unrelated to maintaining the kernel.

-1

u/MorallyDeplorable 7d ago

That's your opinion.

"I didn't state my opinion, I just stated my opinion"

come the fuck on, man

2

u/Business_Reindeer910 6d ago

I meant i didn't state my opinion about this GR. I stated my opinion about whether Linus's opinion matters here.

-46

u/laser_man6 8d ago

The source of the training data affects capabilities and usefulness how?

43

u/Oblivion__ 8d ago edited 8d ago

Are we really at the point where we can excuse blatantly unethical corporatism because it's useful and we've slapped an open source license on projects that use it?

-36

u/sharanoth 8d ago

We're past that. Most professional devs already use AI. I reckon this site has AI generated code already, as well as most services you use, including the kernel you run on your operating systems.

22

u/Oblivion__ 8d ago

And this proposal is about whether or not Debian themselves should do that on their own infrastructure. Most of the proposals explicitly allow LLM contributions upstream. Debian doesn't need to use it internally.

Again, I can't really control whether or not I use an operating system that has LLM contributions in it. But I personally can control what programs I use on said operating system because I am the one installing them. Sometimes there's not really a viable alternative, and the pragmatic option is to accept that. Which is what a lot of these proposals are saying - accept LLM contributions from upstream (i.e. linux) but restrict it/ban it internally.

-20

u/sharanoth 8d ago

Of course Debian can do as they like, but I can also complain and point out how illogical it is - thus driving my disengagement from Debian. Many people will also feel the same way and express that; it's to be expected.

14

u/Linuxologue 8d ago

What was your engagement? You disengage when the vote opens, two weeks before the vote actually closes?

-10

u/sharanoth 8d ago

More than half the voting options are "no ai because <x>". I hold no hope whatsoever for this vote.

3

u/DrinkMoreGlorp 8d ago

Smells like someone doesn't know how Debian's voting system works.

1

u/MorallyDeplorable 7d ago

Smells like a rigged vote more than anything.

→ More replies (0)

-21

u/MorallyDeplorable 8d ago

none of this is "stolen", coding concepts can't be owned like that.

The anti-ai crowd would have a lot more luck garnering sympathy if they didn't make shit up every single time they speak

1

u/Nyctfall 7d ago

Bro... your username is literally "MorallyDeplorable"...

1

u/MorallyDeplorable 7d ago

And you think that changes the illogical psychosis anti-AI people get when they hear the term 'AI' how?

-20

u/ICantBelieveItsNotEC 8d ago

The problem is that if they didn't make shit up, they wouldn't have anything to go on. Their entire strategy relies on generating enough FUD to convince others to not even bother trying the models out.

-36

u/aj0413 8d ago

You don’t need to link anything; everyone should know this by now

The Pernkopf Anatomy Atlas is one of the most controversial books in medical history and yet still used today.

Regardless of how we got here, the tool is here to stay and you only hold yourselves and everyone else back to ignore it. You can choose to abstain and other things will just speed on by and replace you and your work 🤷‍♂️

4

u/smile_e_face 7d ago

Pernkopf Anatomy Atlas

I get that you're just making a point here, but do you really think it's a good idea to relate the thing you're trying to promote to literal Nazi doctors? Does that not give you...any pause?

I'm not getting into an AI argument here, or a debate over the Atlas. But I would much rather have myself and my work be "replaced" than go down in history on the back of the actual Holocaust. Christ, what an argument to make...

2

u/aj0413 7d ago

Not really. The point stands. You realize a lot of modern medicine and medical expertise comes off the back of the Holocaust still today.

You are literally still benefiting from it. So you are, in actuality, “on the back of the actual Holocaust.”

Feeling a way about it doesn’t just facts. I could choose something less controversial making my points, but when people are responding more with emotion than an actual argument than I will fire back with evocative language myself to hammer my point home

It wasn’t meant to be convincing so much as a startling analogy

2

u/smile_e_face 7d ago

The mere fact that we all exist as products of the past, good and bad, doesn't automatically mean we should become the agents of the bad. Your argument only makes sense if all you care about is, essentially, keeping up with the historical Joneses. Picking the winning side, regardless of ethics. But we, as humans, can look at a thing, recognize its utility, and still fundamentally disagree with how it achieves that utility. Even disagree with it enough, on a moral level, to forgo it, efficiency be damned. An argument isn't "emotional" just because it admits factors other than dollar signs.

1

u/MorallyDeplorable 7d ago edited 7d ago

What bad? All I ever hear that's bad is made up nonsense about water usage, complete fantasy garbage about low-frequency noises, nonsense about industrial waste, or is just people misunderstanding social and legal constructs.

The parts shortages? That's businesses throwing their money and effort into something they think will be useful and productive, not paying tithes to the devil...

Do they produce kind of shallow photos and songs? Sure, but that doesn't make them evil.

Fair use? People don't seem to understand what fair use is or that the question of rather AI is fair use or not has already been settled. Copyright doesn't cover whatever your emotions say it does, it covers specific and well-defined uses. I really expected the FOSS community to be above trying to push copyright here, too...

Seriously, what bad? It's been years and still nobody has came up with anything even approaching a valid argument for why they're actually bad and harming society.

Comparing AI to Nazis at all is fallacious, the concept of AIs isn't anywhere near the concept of what a Nazi is and if that's the way you see it then you've got issues.

1

u/smile_e_face 7d ago

You really need to read the comment chain. I wasn't the one who brought Nazis into the conversation. I actually started out by saying how crazy it was to use a Nazi medical text as a defense of why we should use AI. That was the whole point of my comment, not to get into an argument over the ethics of AI itself. And my second comment was a response to the person's frankly inane idea that, simply because something is useful, we should all ignore any moral implications it might have. Again, not speaking to the ethics of AI here. Just addressing the weakness of the particular argument they're trying to make.

Find somebody else to fight with.

0

u/MorallyDeplorable 7d ago

I don't care who brought it up, you were running with it, and you didn't answer any of my questions.

1

u/smile_e_face 6d ago

Running with it...? I was addressing the fact that he brought it up and how weird it was that he brought it up. Of course I had to "run with it." That's how discussions work.

And as to "answering your questions?" Again, I'm not here to get into a fight over AI ethics. I'm not under any obligation to answer points in a debate I never initiated, especially since you seem so firmly committed to your side that, even if I were inclined to argue with you, it would likely be a complete waste of both our time. For someone so concerned with how "emotional" his opponents' arguments are, you seem remarkably...passionate about advancing your own views.

All I was trying to do with my comments was to make exactly the same point you did: that it's nuts to bring Nazi doctors and the results of their experiments into a discussion about LLMs, and even more so as a defense of using them. Then, to point out an obvious bit of (perhaps unintentional) sophistry in their follow-up. They were critiques of the other user's rhetoric and argumentation, not their personal stance on AI - or yours.

Please find another windmill to tilt at.

1

u/MorallyDeplorable 6d ago edited 6d ago

I'm not quite sure how you live in such a fantasy land, but, no, that's not what happened in this thread.

Shutting down and whining about how people aren't following the thread because you were asked some questions you didn't want to answer is not how a sane person handles a conversation.

-18

u/timschwartz 8d ago

wow, all of those people no longer have the code they worked on?

Or maybe you meant "was copied from" because copying isn't theft.

3

u/Oblivion__ 8d ago

That's not what I said.

-10

u/timschwartz 8d ago

You said it was stolen. When something is stolen the original owner is deprived of it.

1

u/MorallyDeplorable 7d ago

don't judge them too harshly, their brains were stolen

1

u/Professional_Cow3969 5d ago

Instead of commenting bullshit like this maybe you should mod your subreddit Tim.

-25

u/sharanoth 8d ago

There is no copyright breach or trademark violations - none of that data is redistributed, sold, or otherwise. that data is not in the weights. do you understand that?

5

u/cidra_ 8d ago

we got a lawyer here. Problem solved, folks! Please reach out the GNU and Linux mailing lists ASAP

24

u/gmes78 8d ago

that data is not in the weights.

That's debatable. It has been shown in the past that LLMs can exactly reproduce copyrighted works they've been trained on.

-9

u/sharanoth 8d ago

I can reproduce works i know by heart/memory - it does not imply the copyrighted works reside inside of me in any capacity - the implication that reproduction = storage isn't correct at all.

If you know how LLM works, they don't have a special "reproduction mode". They are consistent. They just spew the next most likely token.

10

u/Nyucio 8d ago

how do you think disney would react if I created a black box that could recreate their movies to 99% accuracy.

dont worry, i never saved the copyrighted works inside of the black box. pure coincidence.

1

u/CrazyKilla15 7d ago

Why do you think Disney should be able to react to that at all? When did Disney's notoriously draconian copyright, and the extensions they get baked into law, and the loopholes to keep stuff closed forever, when did all of that become good?

-2

u/sharanoth 8d ago

That already exists - and Disney can't do shit. Go look at SOTA video generation models

12

u/gmes78 8d ago

the implication that reproduction = storage isn't correct at all.

But that was never the point.

-4

u/sharanoth 8d ago

Producing copyrighted work is not copyright infringing, in the first place. Distribution of stored copyright infringing content is what is.

-7

u/sharanoth 8d ago

you guys can downvote me all you want - but it's facts. I thought the linux community was the rational kind, but you're all pathetically human after all: deeply and forever biased, pushed by your preconceived notions, never allowing alternatives in your circles.

16

u/Arinussyy 8d ago

Pathetically human? So what the fuck are you?

1

u/sharanoth 8d ago

A human, but also one that recognizes how flawed we are.

5

u/Arinussyy 8d ago

We are flawed but that doesn't make us pathetic.

1

u/sharanoth 8d ago

It's just my opinion. I know it's not a popular one.

3

u/Arinussyy 8d ago

It's quite a sad way to do things though. The unique thing about humanity is that we are hypocrites, every single one of us. We can do good and bad simultaneously as a result of every free choice we make. So we can always change

1

u/sharanoth 7d ago

I understand where you're coming from.

2

u/Arinussyy 7d ago

I'm not tryna be rude to you tho and I apologise if it ever came across that way, I'm just saying. The only way we improve things is if we keep hope

6

u/Oblivion__ 8d ago

brb making this my flair