BALLOT OPTIONS

Choice 1: Ban LLM contributions from Debian via Social Contract

::: spoiler

Preamble
--------

This proposal aims to expressly forbid any contributions to Debian
written with the use or assistance of large language models (LLMs) or
other generative AI tools.

The scope of this GR is (non-exhaustive):
- Debian source packages
- Official Debian project software, such as lintian
- Debian web resources
- Documentation and translations added by Debian contributors
- Official communication from Debian

It does not include:

- Upstream projects using LLMs for development
- AI-related software
- Upstream patches/security fixes etc.

Rationale
---------

Debian has a well-earned reputation for stability. This stability is
crucial to Debian's position in the free software ecosystem. It is our
belief that widespread LLM usage comes from the "move fast, and break
things" attitude that, while common in many parts of this industry, is
contrary to what makes Debian Debian, and is inappropriate for Debian
contributors.

In practical terms, LLM usage raises the following concerns:

1.  Copyright
-------------

LLM output has very unclear legal status: it may be possible to
copyright on its own merits, or not; it may be affected by all of the
licenses and copyrights in the training data, or not. Debian Policy
and the DFSG require absolute clarity for licensing and
copyright[1][2]. Software and other contributions written
conventionally by humans with unclear copyright or license status are
not allowed in Debian; LLM output should not have a special exception
to this.

2. Quality
----------

LLM output has many well-known problems with accuracy.[3][4][5] A LLM
can never "know" if its output is correct since it merely produces
syntactically likely combinations of the training data. In some
environments this is good enough. In Debian, it is not. For instance,
in packaging, each Debian source package is unique. Since packaging
syntax and best practices have changed over time, a LLM-produced
package will have a mixture of contents spanning the age of the
archive, with watch files that do not work, overrides out of context,
imaginary copyright, and will generally be unfit for upload. A
seasoned Debian contributor with packaging expertise may find some
limited usefulness here, but a new contributor cannot, and would not
know how to fix it. These same quality and accuracy concerns apply
clearly to all of the areas listed in the scope of this proposal
above. If Debian were a closed organization comprising only domain
experts who never leave, this might not be an issue; however,

3. Community
-------------

Debian is a project that is more than just code: it is a community
built on shared interests in free software and solving technical
problems. Debian intentionally grows this community through many
means, and new contributors are always encouraged to join. Allowing
LLM contributions breaks this. New contributors submitting LLM output
for review places an unnecessary strain on the reviewer, which can
lead to burnout. Furthermore, LLM-dependent new contributors do not
actually learn and understand the details of Debian packaging or
processes, so they cannot come to replace a former burned out DD.

:::