Alterslash picks up to the best 5 comments from each of the day’s Slashdot stories, and presents them on a single page for easy reading.
Debian Decides: Contributors Can Use Generative AI ‘Responsibly’
This week Debian voted on whether to ban AI-assisted contributions. The winning proposal? “Debian neither endorses nor prohibits the use of generative AI tools” in its projects, documentation, and packaging… Generative AI “is neither exempt from nor subject to special rules beyond the standards already expected of Debian contributors.”
“The responsibility for every contribution rests with the contributor who submits it, who remains accountable for its technical quality, legal acceptability, and suitability for inclusion in Debian.”
“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. 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. Blindly accepting or uploading AI-generated material without appropriate human review is inconsistent with Debian’s established development practices.
We enourage our contributors to disclose whether a contribution was made with AI assitance, but do not require them to do so.
Debian acknowledges that the legal status of material produced by generative AI systems remains the subject of ongoing discussion in many jurisdictions, including questions relating to copyright… The Project does not seek to resolve these unsettled legal questions through this General Resolution, nor does it adopt a position on whether AI-generated output is, in whole or in part, copyrightable or derived from copyrighted works. Instead, Debian continues to rely on the judgment and responsibility of its individual contributors. Project members are expected to exercise appropriate care when using generative AI tools, to consider the provenance and licensing implications of material they contribute, and to avoid introducing content whose legal status they cannot reasonably justify. Existing Debian policies governing licensing, copyright, software freedom, and the acceptance of contributions continue to apply irrespective of the tools used to produce those contributions.
It also cautions contributors to keep keys, credentials, and embargoed security reports from leaking to third-party AI services.
But discussion continues on Debian’s mailing list. “I regret the loss of contributors,” wrote the author of the winning proposition (while acknowledging it would have happened with either option winning). “It is just too early to take a final decision on the matter. Let’s revisit this in two years or so, and let this mess of a GR be a warning for our future selves.”
Other comments from the mailing list:
- “On a very personal note, I regret that the winning option does not acknowledge all the legitimate concerns around AI: environmental impact, copyright and licensing uncertainty, the health of Free Software communities, and the strain of aggressive scraping on the open web… [W]e have a lot of work ahead of us to act as a community and understand how we can continue to accommodate the very large minority that would have preferred to ban or discourage AI.
- “I also think that our next discussion should distinguish between locally running LLMs and cloud LLMs. The way things are going, locally running LLMs will be an alternative, and then you can much better control what was the training data and the Freeness of the thing.”
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader Robbat2 for sharing the news.
Chatbot Conversations Can Become Evidence in Court
The Washington Post looks “a growing number of Americans who have had their private conversations with AI chatbots made public in court,” calling the chatbots “custodians of a fast-growing trove of intimate data that can be sought by law enforcement, or companies or other opponents in civil litigation.”
A Washington Post review of public records and local news stories found that chatbot logs were cited in 12 court cases over the past two years. It’s hard to know how often chatbot material is drawn into investigations and legal proceedings more broadly, because police, and parties in civil cases, don’t have to present in court all the evidence they obtain… In some cases, AI companies have reported people on their platforms to the FBI, leading to prosecutions and at least one conviction… OpenAI has said the company uses software to scan conversations for signs of dangerous behavior and flag them to human reviewers.
If a reviewer determines a chat indicates “an imminent and credible risk of harm to others,” they report the user to law enforcement, the company said in an April blog post. A spokesperson for OpenAI declined to disclose how many times the company had reported users to police.... Data released by OpenAI shows requests by government agencies and law enforcement for user data growing rapidly. In the second half of 2025, the company disclosed data from more than 80 accounts, an increase of more than four times as many over the same period the year before…
When police ask someone to open their phone during questioning or after an arrest, they often do so, allowing officers to scroll through the apps they use, [according to Michael Price, the litigation director for the Fourth Amendment Center at the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers]… In general, the Fourth Amendment, which protects people against unreasonable searches and seizures of their property, provides the right to refuse a search of the contents of their phone unless police have a warrant. “The short answer is that most people consent,” Price said. “They shouldn’t, but they do…”
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has argued that conversations with chatbots should receive special legal protections, similar to conversations between clients and their attorneys.
Special legal protections aren’t recognized by courts today, the article poitns out. A financial executive who became the subject of a federal criminal investigation for fraud asked Claude about potential defense strategies, then asked a judge to disallow the conversations from the prosecution’s case, according to the article. “But the judge said that protections for conversations between clients and their attorneys did not apply: Claude is not a lawyer, and the executive’s attorneys did not ask him to talk to the chatbot.”
The article includes quotes from three ChatGPT conversations that later turned up in court proceedings:
- “I deleted a email a year ago from my yahoo account. Can yahoo still retrieve the email?”
- “How f——d am i bro. What if i smahsed the s—- oitta mutlipls cars.”
- “My dad Said that I’m will get a settlement worth of 1million dollar.”
“As AI becomes a bigger part of everyday life, its use as evidence and in trials is likely to become more prevalent,” the article points out — especially with the growing popularity of agents that take actions for users.
Billions in fines, but …
… true justice will be served when the courts order all of the copies and products based on them to be destroyed. Namely, the Claude and other Anthropic models.
Make a public show out of this by bulldozing their data centers to accomplish this.