Debian votes to allow “responsible use of generative AI”

Debian 投票通过“负责任地使用生成式 AI”

The results of the Debian general-resolution vote on the use of large language models have been posted; the winner is choice 5: Responsible Use of Generative AI. Debian neither endorses nor prohibits the use of generative AI tools in the development, maintenance, or documentation of software, packaging, documentation, and other media published within the Debian Project. Debian 关于使用大语言模型的通用决议投票结果已经公布；获胜的是选项 5：负责任地使用生成式 AI。Debian 既不背书也不禁止在 Debian 项目发布的软件、打包、文档及其他媒体的开发、维护或记录中使用生成式 AI 工具。

We recognize that such tools can substantially improve the productivity of contributors when used responsibly, allowing volunteers to spend more of their limited time on work that requires technical expertise, judgment, review, and collaboration. 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. 我们认识到，当负责任地使用时，此类工具可以显著提高贡献者的生产力，使志愿者能够将更多有限的时间投入到需要技术专长、判断力、审查和协作的工作中。尽管如此，Debian 项目仍要求提交给 Debian 的所有贡献，无论其制作方式和所用工具如何，都必须满足相同的质量、正确性、可维护性和法律合规性标准。

The use of a generative AI tool does not diminish the contributor’s responsibility for the work they submit. Contributors are expected to understand, review, test, and, where appropriate, modify AI-assisted output before incorporating it into Debian. 使用生成式 AI 工具并不会减轻贡献者对其所提交工作应承担的责任。贡献者在将 AI 辅助生成的输出纳入 Debian 之前，必须理解、审查、测试并根据需要对其进行修改。

---

[Commentary/Discussion Summary] [评论/讨论摘要]

dskoll: I’m a bit sad it went that way, but I guess it was inevitable. Debian is too large a project to be able to meaningfully enforce a stronger stance against LLMs. So I think they realized it’s pointless to make rules that you can’t enforce. dskoll： 我对这个结果感到有点难过，但我想这是不可避免的。Debian 是一个太大的项目，无法有效地执行针对大语言模型（LLM）的强硬立场。所以我认为他们意识到制定无法执行的规则是毫无意义的。

MarcB: I, for one, am very glad. In particular the fact that the two full-Anti-AI proposals (1&3) were even below “None of the above” is very good sign. Had one of those won, the attempts to enforce them would have ruined Debian. MarcB： 就我个人而言，我非常高兴。特别是两个完全反 AI 的提案（1 和 3）甚至排在“以上皆非”（None of the above）之后，这是一个非常好的信号。如果其中任何一个获胜，试图执行这些规则将会毁掉 Debian。

tachi: Option 3 was not “fully-Anti-AI”; it explicitly allowed (but discouraged) AI contributions, but disallowed LLM-generated emails to be exchanged on the lists. Also, (at least for me) the point was not to focus on enforcement, but rather signal to the wider world “Hey, we think this is not OK”. tachi： 选项 3 并非“完全反 AI”；它明确允许（但不鼓励）AI 贡献，但禁止在邮件列表中交流 LLM 生成的邮件。此外，（至少对我来说）重点不在于执行，而是向外界发出信号：“嘿，我们认为这不妥”。

bluca: Nah, it was very much about enforcement, and that’s why it proposed to update the code of conduct, and one of the supporters was quite open about this on the mailing list. This was 100% intended to start a witch hunt. bluca： 不，这很大程度上就是关于执行，这就是为什么它提议更新行为准则，而且其中一位支持者在邮件列表中对此直言不讳。这百分之百是为了发起一场猎巫行动。

bluca (on the voting outcome): It might not be obvious due to the complexity of the voting system, but it is definitely worth noting that not only the sensible and rational position won, but the options that were set up with the implicit (or by reading some emails from some proponents, quite explicit actually) purpose of setting up witch hunts to actively punish anyone who dared not toe the extremely vague anti-AI line… were soundly defeated and rejected. bluca（关于投票结果）： 由于投票系统的复杂性，这一点可能不明显，但非常值得注意的是，不仅理性和合理的立场获胜了，而且那些旨在（通过阅读一些支持者的邮件，实际上相当明确）发起猎巫行动，以积极惩罚任何不敢遵循极其模糊的反 AI 路线的人的选项（选项 1 修改社会契约，选项 3 修改行为准则，两者都暗示要驱逐任何持异议者）被彻底击败并否决了。

mhvk: It depends what you mean by “soundly” - if I read that graph correctly, about 30% of the voters preferred the no-AI options over all the others. To me, it looks like “status quo” won, which is perhaps appropriate in times of rapid change. mhvk： 这取决于你对“彻底”的定义——如果我没看错那张图表，大约 30% 的选民更倾向于“无 AI”选项。在我看来，这看起来像是“现状”获胜了，这在快速变化的时代或许是合适的。