Boo
Fuck Flathub then
Even linux kernel, debian allows responsible AI commits 😅 Then why not flathub. Right? 😂
That’s why clean reimplementations of Linux as HyperOS do exist, and distros that ban AI on a userspace-level (Arch in example).
First of all: no AI commit is responsible. Any and all AI uses are intrinsically unethical and unresponsible.
I wonder if this much issues behind AI commits why debian, linux kernel and flahub are allowing AI commits.
Do someone concious just switch from debian after this ?
Also never heard about hyperOS linux distro.
It’s not a distro, it’s a reimplementation of the Linux kernel itself. It’s not complete yet but it’s at an fairly advanced point already.
It even has its own bootloader that’s compatible with any OS already, simply named Hyper.
As for Flathub, I do simply prefer using AppImages, anyways, Flatpak always was too much bloat for me.
As for Debian, I use Arch btw, but willing to change to Gentoo in a future, when I know more about Linux. Anyways, there are distros as Devuan, MX or AntiX that do ban AI AFAIK and are deb-based.
Makes sense. AI can accelerate experienced coders. I’m ok to see people use AI for helping but NOT for Vibe Coding.
That’s like saying social media can make people more social, when we know that for most people it just leads to addiction.
Human brains are designed to find shortcuts, vibe coding is one of them. I’ve seen plenty of senior devs fall into this trap.
Well, it was inevitable.
Yeah at this point trying to ban ai code is like trying to ban sunlight in the desert.
Doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try.
Open source maintainers have enough trouble without trying to ban all AI generated code just to comply with a distributor.
AI code is inevitable. Even if you outright ban it, people will try to sneak it in. Lets say the change is literally just changing the order of calls to fix a bug - but the person who found and fixed the bug used AI to do so. Do you ban that? If it’s not disclosed, how would you know? After all the commit is literally just a line order swap. What if the committer actually hand wrote that fix but used AI for the PR body because they don’t speak English well and don’t want to appear dumb?
The best practice is to allow AI-generated code as long as the person providing the commit can properly reason about its function - meaning they understand what the code does and have done their due diligence. Good quality AI generated code isn’t the issue, it’s the skiddies who think prompting Claude with the most basic queries and blindly accepting the output until the one thing they wanted to achieve works, results in usable code. It results in unmaintainable slop. You need an actual engineer with experience to review it, but maintainers don’t have that capacity, so banning slop and requiring contributors to understand what they’re trying to get merged is the best way forward.
There are serious legal concerns about what integration of AI code could mean for open source licenses as it’s already been decided that AI generated content cannot be copyrighted.
Well good news then. Fuck copyright as it currently is. It needs a god damn massive overhaul.
This might actually get some work put towards defucking it.
Yeah, the powerful open source software political lobby will certainly ensure positive change is made.
Doesn’t it? Trying to ban sunlight in the desert means you will waste a ton of resources, fail, and look foolish in the process. Maybe you shouldn’t do that.
Obviously I’m not talking about the metaphor.
It applies to the root too. It’s a good metaphor.
It was a poor metaphor. You absolutely can ban AI software in software you control. If someone then managed to lie and sneak some in and gets found out, ban them and purge their contributions.
Ok. Then you have an extremely broken piece of software. Congrats. Destroying a community project for ideology seems counterproductive.
