On 26Aug30:1558+0200, Simon Walter wrote:

> On 2026-08-30 14:35, David L. Craig via Dng wrote:
> > On 26Aug30:2135+1000, Ralph Ronnquist via Dng wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, Aug 30, 2026 at 12:51:13PM +0200, Johan Helsingius via Dng wrote:
> >
> >>> I wonder what this means for devuan - I assume the AI-generated code
> >>> will propagate from debian into devuan. Not sure how I feel about it.
> >>
> >> Yes, I agree. Since Devuan only forks a few packages and serves all
> >> the rest directly from Debian pools, the immediate future does look
> >> like that.
> >>
> >> Even the forked packages will potentially "suffer" in that they
> >> generally are maintained so as to offer all the functionality of the
> >> upstream Debian source, other than systemd related parts. Doing
> >> something else is a significant change to that work
> >>
> >> Thus, at this stage at least one must put Devuan on the same shelf as
> >> Debian in regards to containing AI slop or not.
> >
> > There's another possibility. Devuan (Debian, too, if they so choose)
> > can fight the slop using AI. Tell it to find the slop and then you
> > as the HITL verify its findings to arrive at the truth. This can be
> > handled by truly Free AI; e.g., OLMo 3, that you can fix in the
> > language it was broken in, running on affordable hardware you control
> > and can truly sandbox if you think that is warranted.
> >
> > Just be aware of the possibility if nothing else...
>
> True true.
>
> I want to read what they voted on. Because voting to allow AI, sounds
> like voting to allow slop/vibe codez.
>
> It is possible to use "AI" to write very concise bug free code, but that
> is not vibe coding. If I were to use "AI" to write code, I would take
> responsibility for it. I would not say that "AI wrote this". That would
> not only be false, it would simply show that I don't know what I am
> doing and cannot be trusted as a human. Sure, I make mistakes, but, I
> own those and do my best to correct them. To give credit to "AI" simply
> means that you cannot be trusted. If I owned a fake car and talked about
> how great it was, would you trust me? It's literally fake intelligence,
> which is magnitude worse than a fake car. "taking out our eyes to look
> at them" comes to mind.
>
> It seems that "AI" working on the kernel is going in the wrong direction
> - allowing "AI" to make radical decisions. It's is not what I would have
> expected from the Finish man.
>
> IMO, it would be wise to wait till LLM technologies really and truly
> matures, before voting on it. This tech will change so much over the
> next few years that what is voted on now, may not make any sense in the
> near future. I would have thought that debian's conservative roots would
> have been to make "let's wait" decision.
>
> If debian is no longer the stable linux distro, maybe more of devuan
> needs to be independent, but in that very vein, to that, I'd say, let's
> wait. ;)
>

I see no problem with crediting AI for its precise contributions to the
effort managed by the HITL. I expect Linus, Greg, et al are looking hard at
how to capitalize on AI's strengths as of today while precluding any errors by
the HITL that let bad stuff get through. Witness all the zero days that
humans never found that have sat in the queue waiting for the relatively
small set of kernel devs to get to them all. Using AI gives the maintainers
a shot at quickly identifying and shipping the AI gold while gating the slop.
What's good for kernel development is likely also good for Devuan development.
--
<not cent from sell>
May the LORD God bless you exceedingly abundantly!

Dave_Craig______________________________________________
"So the universe is not quite as you thought it was.
You'd better rearrange your beliefs, then.
Because you certainly can't rearrange the universe."
__--from_Nightfall_by_Asimov/Silverberg_________________