This indicates you might be in a bubble. I interact with people with a very wide range of opinions on AI and I’m not surprised by any of the proposals here.

▲

johnnyApplePRNG a day ago | parent | next [-]

Do any of those people with a "very wide range of opionions on AI" actually use AI for programming at all?

Because it's perfect for that. Basically designed for it.

It's a tool. Like a calculator. Or a shovel.

You use it do get things done for you.

	▲	kccqzy a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		A few people certainly refused to use AI at all, but several actually used AI for programming and agreed it was useful, but stopped due to being conscious of the environmental footprint. (That’s very similar to the last proposal in this Debian debate.) I don’t really agree with them, but I concede it’s a valid opinion.
	▲	eikenberry a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		What does that have to do with it? Debian developers are the audience and most of them are not programmers. And the parent post was speaking even more generally.

▲

daishi55 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There was one proposal that focused on environmental issues with AI. This is indeed pretty disconnected from reality when you consider that Debian doesn’t have any policy requiring you to be vegan in order to contribute

▲

veeti a day ago | parent | next [-]

You mean the most effective way to enact social and political change is not to stand next to someone at the urinal and tell them you are a vegan?

▲

TheNastyPatty a day ago | parent | prev [-]

What is “disconnected from reality” about environmental considerations regarding AI? Growing AI usage = growing data center power draw = higher emissions from any non-renewable sources contributing to that power, as well as increased freshwater consumption which is itself a considerably difficult resource to renew. That’s about as direct of a causal link between point A (power hungry AI being used for Debian development) and point B (the environment) as you can get. On the other hand, please explain what the hell veganism has to do with Debian development? Like what are you talking about.

	▲	kccqzy a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		AI data centers need electricity, which can be from renewable sources and non-renewable sources, and the exact mix can change from day to day as well as long after these data centers are constructed. The electricity grid is decarbonizing at the fastest pace yet. It's simply a tenuous link. On the other hand there are clear non-renewable fossil fuel being used in our daily lives that desperately need to be electrified, think non-electric vehicles and commercial flights. Even without considering more renewable sources of electricity in the future, ask yourself, on a same carbon emission basis, how much can an AI data center accomplish versus a flight from JFK to SFO? How would the utility function even look like? The way I see it, modern environmentalists like to pick on data centers just because it’s an easy target without entrenched lobbying. The fossil fuel industry is way worse but they have tremendous lobbying.
	▲	veeti a day ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Have you considered how many data centers used the Linux kernel before anybody knew what a Chat GPT is? Does the project get a free pass on such activities?
	▲	preg_match a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		The water usage from AI is so comparatively low that it doesn’t matter. This is where the vegan point comes in. Do you eat meat? Congratulations, you consume 1000x more water than a dozen vegan vibecoders pumping out slop 24/7. It’s good to be environmentally conscious, but big picture here. There are reasonable ways to reduce your water and electricity consumption. Not using AI is just not one of them. There are dozens of low hanging fruit before that. The most obvious is reducing your meat consumption. You can switch to LED bulbs if you haven’t already. Shower with warm, instead of hot, water. Buy second hand clothing or furniture. Etc.

▲

rstuart4133 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> This indicates you might be in a bubble.

He didn't say he was surprised by the options offered. He said he was reassured by what he considered to be the common sense option winning. As was I.

It didn't just win. Debian uses Condorcet voting, which does the equivalent of running lots of mini elections - pairing the options against each of the others in one on one contests. Close contests need a tie breaker mechanism as you get A beats B, B beats C, C beats A. Not this time - the winning option defeated all others in its one on ones.

I found that surprising. There are a few options close to option 5, the winner - only slightly less liberal. Effectively the most extreme option won, and not by a slim margin.

I, and I suspect the OP, wasn't surprised at the range of options offered. This is par for the course - Debian is a very robust democracy with its fair share of opinionated individuals. There has been a lot of noise about the LLM's. The surprising thing is what I regard as the common sense one was at one extreme, and that "extreme" position won easily.

I guess it's yet another illustration of the level of on online noise being a lousy indicator of what the normies are thinking. Yes, that's obvious, but when the level of noise is high it still can catch you by surprise.

Edit: The two most restrictive options were ranked below "None of the Above". That's the strongest rebuke a Debian GR can deliver to a proposal. Under Debians rules, if an option loses to "None of the Above" it can't win regardless of the outcome of the other mini elections. I don't think Debian could make it's position much plainer: LLM's are just another tool a developer can use at his discretion, and are to be treated no differently to any other tool.