If they succeeed, Debian will become dependent on proprietary software for development
There is nothing I see in the resolution about proprietary software? For most of the tasks I expect to be relevant in Debian (packaging, tooling) local free models have been plenty good for quite some time, for example
I'm trying hard not to think of the results today as having lost a child, though I spent 18 years helping Debian grow up.
ok, no. if you really wanna go with the child analogy, you got divorced and moved out as soon as the last child turned 18 because you got tired of not being able to control them. years later, after not really being a part of their life, you heard they made some life choice you disagree with (coming out as queer, marrying someone you don’t like, whatever) and have decided to feel like they are dead despite the fact they’re very much alive.
I lost a parent yesterday, and I'm trying hard not to think of the results today as having lost a child…
In general, I don't recommend getting one's identity wrapped up in things or people, nor do I care for over-dramatization. But considering his dad just died, I can understand why he would reach for a death analogy.
What LLMs in Debian development will do, I fear, is eliminate any incentive to scrap boilerplate or reform policies that require a lot of other senseless human effort. If I had had access to LLMs 30 years ago, I might have just had them generate the rules files, replate with complexity. So they will make Debian even more firmly what it is, and ever less likely to explore what it could become.
What a weirdly pessimistic take. LLMs make boilerplate less painful, so Debian is less likely to take steps to remove boilerplate.
Alternative possibility: LLMs make identifying and building tools to remove boilerplate easier, so Debian is more likely to take those steps in the future.
A realistic take because what's preventing boilerplate elimination in Debian isn't technical. Reducing the labor to generate incidental complexity will only entrench political resistance to change to improve the conditions. Even in a weirdly LLM-maximalist take, how on earth are LLMs supposed to solve this? Pointing out how LLMs can cause problems doesn't make the take pessimistic. Or weird.
Seems just very literal and plain-spokenly true to me, if uncomfortable. All the evidence I've seen backs it up.
As usual, I'm biased by the LLM-users take on IDEs. Where I see the possibility to massively slash the complexity of an IDE by eliminating layers and layers of historical debt, they just want to build layers and layers on top of historical debt.
singpolyma | 8 hours ago
There is nothing I see in the resolution about proprietary software? For most of the tasks I expect to be relevant in Debian (packaging, tooling) local free models have been plenty good for quite some time, for example
chrismorgan | 2 hours ago
Open-weight models are not at all free according to Debian’s definition.
bmo | 12 hours ago
Blog is down for me but you can also read the post here: https://planet.debian.org/
lilac | 13 hours ago
ok, no. if you really wanna go with the child analogy, you got divorced and moved out as soon as the last child turned 18 because you got tired of not being able to control them. years later, after not really being a part of their life, you heard they made some life choice you disagree with (coming out as queer, marrying someone you don’t like, whatever) and have decided to feel like they are dead despite the fact they’re very much alive.
bitshift | 12 hours ago
That quote is missing some preceding context:
In general, I don't recommend getting one's identity wrapped up in things or people, nor do I care for over-dramatization. But considering his dad just died, I can understand why he would reach for a death analogy.
conartist6 | an hour ago
Since nobody has said it, to the author: we're sorry for your loss
simonw | 2 hours ago
What a weirdly pessimistic take. LLMs make boilerplate less painful, so Debian is less likely to take steps to remove boilerplate.
Alternative possibility: LLMs make identifying and building tools to remove boilerplate easier, so Debian is more likely to take those steps in the future.
pmbauer | 2 hours ago
A realistic take because what's preventing boilerplate elimination in Debian isn't technical. Reducing the labor to generate incidental complexity will only entrench political resistance to change to improve the conditions. Even in a weirdly LLM-maximalist take, how on earth are LLMs supposed to solve this? Pointing out how LLMs can cause problems doesn't make the take pessimistic. Or weird.
conartist6 | an hour ago
Seems just very literal and plain-spokenly true to me, if uncomfortable. All the evidence I've seen backs it up.
As usual, I'm biased by the LLM-users take on IDEs. Where I see the possibility to massively slash the complexity of an IDE by eliminating layers and layers of historical debt, they just want to build layers and layers on top of historical debt.