FreeBSD's stance on generative AI

[sualbee]

Nice strawman you have there.
a] Ethics of a gun is pointless. Ethics of unnecessarily shooting people is paramount.
b] Promoting commercial big tech AT&T Unix systems, by advocating for not banning the use of computers....hmmm

Are you sure I'm the one constructing a strawman? Obviously, as has been mentioned thousands of times everywhere, including in this thread, when we're talking about ethical concerns surrounding LLMs, we are not talking about the technology itself, because of course it'd be pointless. It simply exists. Just as when we are talking about weapons, it's not about its theoretical physical properties. What matters is whether we should build them, who controls them if they have been built and what the consequences of their (possible) use are. OP clearly expressed these concerns and more, but in return you've pointed them to the transience of ethics.

But we can agree we have different values. I for example value the truth more than a fear. Therefore I prefer options to be open.

This one is particularly nice, especially considering that I didn't say anything about banning the use of LLMs. And seriously, do you really think that I want to be controlled and value fear over truth? What is this, a kindergarten?

 

[cracauer@]

Question:

If we outlaw LLM contributions - what keeps people from submitting anyway without disclosing the LLM help?

 

[DanielBowman]

Are you sure I'm the one constructing a strawman? Obviously, as has been mentioned thousands of times everywhere, including in this thread, when we're talking about ethical concerns surrounding LLMs, we are not talking about the technology itself, because of course it'd be pointless. It simply exists. Just as when we are talking about weapons, it's not about its theoretical physical properties. What matters is whether we should build them, who controls them if they have been built and what the consequences of their (possible) use are. OP clearly expressed these concerns and more, but in return you've pointed them to the transience of ethics.


This one is particularly nice, especially considering that I didn't say anything about banning the use of LLMs. And seriously, do you really think that I want to be controlled and value fear over truth? What is this, a kindergarten?

You are talking about controlling the use of the technology, because of it's unethical origins. Matter of if we should even build them takes it to even higher level of control.
You are just contradiction yourself in the first paragraph.

I pointed out that ethics is derived from survival needs. And that limiting Ai in FreeBSD might disadvantage FreeBSD.
And apart from unnecessary harm, ethical rules are seldom unchanging.
Maybe re-read the thread again.

People who have desire for control, do that out of fear. I said nothing about you wanting to be controlled.
We can debate the merits of that fear but you already proclaimed them valid while dismissing mitigating qualities as practically null.

 

[JohnK]

Question:

If we outlaw LLM contributions - what keeps people from submitting anyway without disclosing the LLM help?

Question:

If we allow llm contributions - what do we need people for (-i.e., how many people do we need to ask questions)?

 

[cracauer@]

Question:

If we allow llm contributions - what do we need people for (-i.e., how many people do we need to ask questions)?

The actual submission still has to come from a person who is responsible for it, and who understands the code submitted.

 

[JohnK]

The actual submission still has to come from a person who is responsible for it, and who understands the code submitted.

Ah. "accountability". So if [you] understand the code then why not just write it [yourself] and eliminate the question?
...my point was more along the lines of defining what constitutes a 'contribution' (and how utterly asinine that slippery slope exercise is)? -ie. "speed" is often not necessary (or counter productive) when working with the complex.
-eg. change one `strcmp()` to `strncmp()` and you change the entire meaning/use.

 

[msplsh]

Question:

If we outlaw LLM contributions - what keeps people from submitting anyway without disclosing the LLM help?

Post in thread 'Will FreeBSD adopt a No-AI policy or such?'

Jul 13, 2026

If you forbid that people will just stop disclosing that fact.

Sure, but

1) if they do that, they'll have to cover for it, which is difficult, and why would you make your life more difficult for a project that doesn't want your contributions in the first place

2) let them ruin their own reputation for not being able to follow rules

and 3) as many people have said, you don't have to worry about them not disclosing it, they'll volunteer this information.

Should be self-selecting.

• msplsh

• 

 

[drhowarddrfine]

Ah. "accountability". So if [you] understand the code then why not just write it [yourself] and eliminate the question?

It might be easier or quicker to review supplied code that purports to solve the problem than to create your own from scratch.

Today I read that some high level math problems are being solved but in ways that mathematicians don't understand. Is math or code supplied by AI but not understandable safe to use? I don't think so. Is understandable code reviewed by a knowledgeable FreeBSD developer that solves a problem a good thing? Sure. Why not?

Should AI be allowed to modify code on its own without review? Oh hell no!