> All contributions are expected to be made by humans. AI tools may be used for research and learning, but all content in contributions must originate from and be understood by the contributor. This includes code, documentation, issues, security reports, pull request descriptions, and comments in all Void Linux community spaces.
This reads as though you can't use an LLM to write any code at all.
Probably need a lawyer to weigh in but "originate from and be understood by a contributor" sounds like "write a prompt". The machine isn't sentient and doesn't just decide to generate code one day.
Maybe that's not what the authors of the policy intended but that's how it reads imo
I am sure this is referring to the userspace contribs, not the kernel itself, since the userspace stuff is really what makes the distro a distro (unless it's running custom kernels, which it would have to use a backport from pre-AI code, or something)...
That said if they extended to kernel-space, it seems like NetBSD would be the other *nix like alternative (Google's AI summary says they're the only BSD to take a strict no-ai stance).
I feel like people are just taking the easy shortcut when making these policies and banning AI completely.
With AI, it is very easy to make sloppy code where nobody didn't put much thought on it. But AI can be really useful if you have the patience to use it incrementally and not by just asking it to one shot something.
Since on average the people don't have patience and don't act with responsibility, spaghetti gets everywhere. It may sound tempting to ban the AI-generated code, but the issue is not the AI, but the lack of responsibility and potentially the the lack of experience of the developers whom are contributing with this spaghetti slop.
The judgment should go for the end result and the author is responsible if the code is bad. Add exponential back-off to contributions if they are bad.
It is also possible to brute-force maintainers with too many things to review, but you can also limit the lines of code they can contribute, unless they have some sort of reputation.
Banning the AI just means that everyone is using it, but nobody is saying it aloud. Since it saves so much time when used correctly.
I agree, the policy should be to not allow low quality submissions and have clear copyright status. There are some nuances that needs to be addressed though.
With LLMs it's too easy to replicate implementation of algorithm that is copyrighted, with manual coding it's more deliberate. Sometimes you can't really separate the algorithm from the implementation. So a maintainer needs to check the origin of any algorithm used.
The copyright status for non-algorithm code is quite straightforward and it's often a non-copyrightable code anyway (boilerplate, configuration, obvious steps, etc.). The generated code by LLM has no human author therefore it is public domain, there is no problem of incorporating of public domain code. Any copyrigtable modifications are made by the user of the LLM.
The biggest problem is the amount of low effort contributions caused by AI usage. But one could just reject it on being of low effort.
There is no need to specifically target AI in the policy, with one exception that is unique to LLM contributions: people not understanding anything about the produced code at all. One couldn't trust anything from such contributor.
> Banning the AI just means that everyone is using it, but nobody is saying it aloud. Since it saves so much time when used correctly.
Not exactly. It also attracts developers who are against AI philosophically. What I've actually seen is that there are a sizable number of people who are against AI and want a place for their code. You're also wrong that AI isn't the problem: it is. AI is the problem because it's too addictive and easy to use, and we're not rational creatures but instinctive.
Personally, I would only contribute to projects that have a complete AI-free policy. I hate AI and think it's a detriment to the human race.
To me AI seems to be similar to drugs. It can be used responsibly, some users are total junkies. There are huge social/economical impacts. It has similar anti stances, even proposing legislative bans (should we relive the prohibition again?). It's interesting to observe it in this context.
Having a philosophy is okay, but people must understand the social coencequences as well. Maybe similar example would be that people allow only assembly in their projects and compiled languages are forbidden. The impact is here likely similar on projects that are needed for something, and not just for fun.
> You're also wrong that AI isn't the problem: it is. AI is the problem because it's too addictive and easy to use, and we're not rational creatures but instinctive.
This is kinda moving the responsibility to the wrong place, and similar issue is on other topics. Is it the fault of the store if they put expensive things on areas where they are easy to steal? And then the store complains about lost property. Should we ban placing the things on poor places or criminalize thiefs and disallow thiefs to enter the store again?
Zero-tolerance no-AI policies are tiresome. I get why people have concerns. No PR reviewer wants to review drek the submitter him/herself doesn't understand. And LLMs have been a disproportionate source for such drek. But the actual problem they're trying to solve should be low-quality submissions, rather than spending energy fulfilling some notion of AI-free purity.
The linked issue raised the complaint that a bit of text as a "wall of text" (implication, I guess, too many words, too little meaning). Maybe it was or wasn't. But being generated by an LLM doesn't make it a wall of text, and being written by a human doesn't make it not a wall (speaking as somebody who has been fairly accused at times of generating 100% human-made walls of text).
12 comments
[ 0.23 ms ] story [ 2.5 ms ] threadAs AI bans go, this one doesn't seem too stringent if you disclose AI and actually check what it's doing.
> All contributions are expected to be made by humans. AI tools may be used for research and learning, but all content in contributions must originate from and be understood by the contributor. This includes code, documentation, issues, security reports, pull request descriptions, and comments in all Void Linux community spaces.
This reads as though you can't use an LLM to write any code at all.
Maybe that's not what the authors of the policy intended but that's how it reads imo
Seems like a very dumb hill to die on in 2026
That said if they extended to kernel-space, it seems like NetBSD would be the other *nix like alternative (Google's AI summary says they're the only BSD to take a strict no-ai stance).
Or Gnu HURD.
Since on average the people don't have patience and don't act with responsibility, spaghetti gets everywhere. It may sound tempting to ban the AI-generated code, but the issue is not the AI, but the lack of responsibility and potentially the the lack of experience of the developers whom are contributing with this spaghetti slop.
The judgment should go for the end result and the author is responsible if the code is bad. Add exponential back-off to contributions if they are bad.
It is also possible to brute-force maintainers with too many things to review, but you can also limit the lines of code they can contribute, unless they have some sort of reputation.
Banning the AI just means that everyone is using it, but nobody is saying it aloud. Since it saves so much time when used correctly.
With LLMs it's too easy to replicate implementation of algorithm that is copyrighted, with manual coding it's more deliberate. Sometimes you can't really separate the algorithm from the implementation. So a maintainer needs to check the origin of any algorithm used.
The copyright status for non-algorithm code is quite straightforward and it's often a non-copyrightable code anyway (boilerplate, configuration, obvious steps, etc.). The generated code by LLM has no human author therefore it is public domain, there is no problem of incorporating of public domain code. Any copyrigtable modifications are made by the user of the LLM.
The biggest problem is the amount of low effort contributions caused by AI usage. But one could just reject it on being of low effort.
There is no need to specifically target AI in the policy, with one exception that is unique to LLM contributions: people not understanding anything about the produced code at all. One couldn't trust anything from such contributor.
Not exactly. It also attracts developers who are against AI philosophically. What I've actually seen is that there are a sizable number of people who are against AI and want a place for their code. You're also wrong that AI isn't the problem: it is. AI is the problem because it's too addictive and easy to use, and we're not rational creatures but instinctive.
Personally, I would only contribute to projects that have a complete AI-free policy. I hate AI and think it's a detriment to the human race.
> You're also wrong that AI isn't the problem: it is. AI is the problem because it's too addictive and easy to use, and we're not rational creatures but instinctive.
This is kinda moving the responsibility to the wrong place, and similar issue is on other topics. Is it the fault of the store if they put expensive things on areas where they are easy to steal? And then the store complains about lost property. Should we ban placing the things on poor places or criminalize thiefs and disallow thiefs to enter the store again?
The linked issue raised the complaint that a bit of text as a "wall of text" (implication, I guess, too many words, too little meaning). Maybe it was or wasn't. But being generated by an LLM doesn't make it a wall of text, and being written by a human doesn't make it not a wall (speaking as somebody who has been fairly accused at times of generating 100% human-made walls of text).
If text contain a language like Japanese which require Input Method? some IM starting to use AI to perform kana kanji conversion.
So this rule effectively prohibit some languages.