Reminder: #LibreOffice includes no AI features in the software.
-
Reminder: #LibreOffice includes no AI features in the software. It doesn't rewrite your content, train algorithms, or share your data. There is zero AI functionality in the app.
Regarding the use of LLMs in the development process, we have a strict policy about this: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/AI_policy – Contributors who use such tools must be able to explain EVERY changed line of code. We do not accept any "slop".
@libreoffice but guys, EVERY changed line!!!
-
Reminder: #LibreOffice includes no AI features in the software. It doesn't rewrite your content, train algorithms, or share your data. There is zero AI functionality in the app.
Regarding the use of LLMs in the development process, we have a strict policy about this: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/AI_policy – Contributors who use such tools must be able to explain EVERY changed line of code. We do not accept any "slop".
@libreoffice this seems like it would be much harder to enforce in practice than a full-on ban
-
Reminder: #LibreOffice includes no AI features in the software. It doesn't rewrite your content, train algorithms, or share your data. There is zero AI functionality in the app.
Regarding the use of LLMs in the development process, we have a strict policy about this: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/AI_policy – Contributors who use such tools must be able to explain EVERY changed line of code. We do not accept any "slop".
@libreoffice you are awful pricks!
-
It strikes me as odd to ban all use of LLM for the _commit message_, but still allow its use for the actual _code_.
@skjeggtroll @libreoffice If I was any less staunchly against it in general, I'd do the opposite.
-
Reminder: #LibreOffice includes no AI features in the software. It doesn't rewrite your content, train algorithms, or share your data. There is zero AI functionality in the app.
Regarding the use of LLMs in the development process, we have a strict policy about this: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/AI_policy – Contributors who use such tools must be able to explain EVERY changed line of code. We do not accept any "slop".
@libreoffice Ah the old scare quotes around “slop” to show that you literally have no clue what your former users mean when we say AI slop. We mean the output of an LLM. Any output. That is the definition of AI slop. The stochastic data stream that LLMs output. Your “strict” policy strictly allows slop (stochastic output from LLMs) to be submitted by trying to redefine it as “not slop.” You can inspect the slop. You can review the slop. You can even pin a ribbon on the slop and put lipstick on it, but it is still slop. If it came from an LLM, it is slop.
-
@ciatmusings @libreoffice i am pretty sure this guy is just like this, and also i think it's the same one who floated LibreOffice doing blockchain a few years ago
@davidgerard @libreoffice like i hope he gets *something* substantial out of being the guy pelted by rotten produce for bootlicking gymnastics. minimum wage at least
-
Reminder: #LibreOffice includes no AI features in the software. It doesn't rewrite your content, train algorithms, or share your data. There is zero AI functionality in the app.
Regarding the use of LLMs in the development process, we have a strict policy about this: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/AI_policy – Contributors who use such tools must be able to explain EVERY changed line of code. We do not accept any "slop".
unfuckingbelievable.
Couldn't resist that fat Big Tech/VC/Private Equity contribution wad of money eh?
-
@serak @libreoffice "You must be able to ..." is generally unverifiable. The hard requirements in this policy as I see them are:
- The commit message must mention the name of the LLM product.
- The commit message must mention the version of the LLM product.
- The commit message must document "the steps taken", which I'm not sure how much detail they want, but I'd expect at least a high-level description like "I wrote prompt/specification X and told product Y to generate code" or "I originally wrote this code by hand, but I had product X review it and it pointed out the following issues, so I changed it" or something like that.
- The commit message must list the line numbers where an LLM was "involved", which I'd say includes all LLM-generated code and probably also anything written/changed after LLM review.
From what I can see, none of the LLM commits do (3) or (4). (Disclaimer: I'm not sure how useful a list of line numbers would actually be in practice, but the policy says you must have them.)
Examples:
@barubary @serak @libreoffice I can't even look at these commits on my phone cause Anubis is set to such a high standard it has been calculating hashes for multiple minutes and 2% of the battery charge
-
@davidgerard @libreoffice like i hope he gets *something* substantial out of being the guy pelted by rotten produce for bootlicking gymnastics. minimum wage at least
@ciatmusings @libreoffice i think he's in it for the love of the game
-
@barubary @serak @libreoffice I can't even look at these commits on my phone cause Anubis is set to such a high standard it has been calculating hashes for multiple minutes and 2% of the battery charge
@mezza @barubary @libreoffice On my phone it takes around 30 seconds which also is ridiculously long, I don't want to do that on a 15 year old ThinkPad.
-
@libreoffice please don't redefine "slop" to mean that some genai outputs somehow aren't slop. it's all slop, because it's soulless
@lumi@snug.moe @libreoffice@fosstodon.org also, a "must be able to explain it" policy puts the weight on the shoulders of code review team to catch those who can't explain their code. Those who vibe code have a tendency to have zero concerns for the labor they offload onto others by using these data regurgitation tools, tools that typically do things more complicated than necessary and add unneeded and unwanted functions unasked.
-
Reminder: #LibreOffice includes no AI features in the software. It doesn't rewrite your content, train algorithms, or share your data. There is zero AI functionality in the app.
Regarding the use of LLMs in the development process, we have a strict policy about this: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/AI_policy – Contributors who use such tools must be able to explain EVERY changed line of code. We do not accept any "slop".
@libreoffice yes, let's use the make code unreliable machine to make this program you use to work a mess. This is awful, I guess it's back to vim-classic for me.
-
Reminder: #LibreOffice includes no AI features in the software. It doesn't rewrite your content, train algorithms, or share your data. There is zero AI functionality in the app.
Regarding the use of LLMs in the development process, we have a strict policy about this: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/AI_policy – Contributors who use such tools must be able to explain EVERY changed line of code. We do not accept any "slop".
@libreoffice got it. Never, ever, EVER update your programs ever again. Until I find something better. Then your stuff is deleted.
Ffs been using your stuff for over 15 years, and this is what you do? Disgusting.
-
Reminder: #LibreOffice includes no AI features in the software. It doesn't rewrite your content, train algorithms, or share your data. There is zero AI functionality in the app.
Regarding the use of LLMs in the development process, we have a strict policy about this: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/AI_policy – Contributors who use such tools must be able to explain EVERY changed line of code. We do not accept any "slop".
@libreoffice Just say no to any generative AI. It's just wrong and it sucks in any of its forms (review, documentation, coding...)
-
Reminder: #LibreOffice includes no AI features in the software. It doesn't rewrite your content, train algorithms, or share your data. There is zero AI functionality in the app.
Regarding the use of LLMs in the development process, we have a strict policy about this: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/AI_policy – Contributors who use such tools must be able to explain EVERY changed line of code. We do not accept any "slop".
@libreoffice so you *do* accept slop, so long as they can explain it.
-
@libreoffice contributors doing a pinky promise in how they aren't using the slop machine in the way the slop machine encourages everyone to use it doesn't make those contributions any less slop.
In addition to that, it does nothing to make you less complicit with all the shockingly excessive CO2 production, hurdles in adoption of green energy, exploitation of workers in the training process, forced deskilling of specialised workers, financing and legitimisation of the most egregious corporations who are eagerly collaborating openly with fascist governments and contributing to war crimes, and transfer of wealth from individuals to these massive corporations and billionaires, among other issues that I probably forgot to include.
Do you really want to allow contributions that gave this kind of impact in the world? Changing your contribution guidelines to forbid AI contributions has both a positive impact in the development process and a positive impact in the world around. I ask you to reconsider this and make a change for the better, everyone will celebrate it the same way they celebrated the first article about not having slop features in the suite.
@ThisIsFroggie @davidgerard @libreoffice Exactly. Obfuscating the truth. Normalising lies. Completely ignoring the environmental consequences as though it’s a different conversation. Again, how much of complicit okay?
-
Reminder: #LibreOffice includes no AI features in the software. It doesn't rewrite your content, train algorithms, or share your data. There is zero AI functionality in the app.
Regarding the use of LLMs in the development process, we have a strict policy about this: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/AI_policy – Contributors who use such tools must be able to explain EVERY changed line of code. We do not accept any "slop".
@libreoffice Being on the fence is one thing. Lying about the context of the “No AI” policy is criminal. Then arguing that you were right when your own policy proves you were being disingenuous, is goddam reprehensible. Fire the big tech marketing muppet and get on with it–you are alienating your target market.
Take responsibility and apologise. You cannot hide it. You have been called out.
People have had enough of this bullshit.
-
@svavar I did not intend this to come over this way. I myself am very critical of LLMs and LO's use/acceptance of them and do not support their decision or want to argue in favor of it, I just genuinely wanted to take a look at those commits and thought it wouldn't be much effort for @barubary to share them after already having found them before. He actually took more effort with those explanations than I would've expected and I want to thank him for that.
@serak @svavar @barubary I think it's reasonable. Someone said they saw it.
I am definitely not FOR use of sex toys in software development, and I can see that the policy would be hard to enforce.
But it is *not* sea lioning when someone claims they have *seen* evidence.
Accusing someone of sea lioning in this situation is wonky.
-
@solitarywalker @libreoffice or you could ban and shame liars when you catch them, that works too
@davidgerard @solitarywalker @libreoffice yup.
And, people seem to be forgetting that releases don't necessarily have all commits.
-
Reminder: #LibreOffice includes no AI features in the software. It doesn't rewrite your content, train algorithms, or share your data. There is zero AI functionality in the app.
Regarding the use of LLMs in the development process, we have a strict policy about this: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/AI_policy – Contributors who use such tools must be able to explain EVERY changed line of code. We do not accept any "slop".
@libreoffice I'm not just worried about sloppy lines of code. I'm concerned over you accepting and normalizing a technology that cannot be separated from exploitation, largescale violation of intellectual property, and systems of inequality and dependency...
I would greatly appreciate if could at least address these problems if you choose to accept LLM contributions, and not just gloss over them. I'd be happier if you could continue completely AI-free.
