Reminder: #LibreOffice includes no AI features in the software.

[svavar@masto.svavar.com]

@libreoffice

When the LLM brain rot sets in (if it hasn’t already), there will be no “easy hacks” because nobody will know how to write their own code anymore.

[serak@chaos.social]

@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.

[digipooch@lgbtqia.space]

@libreoffice I had a feeling that when you say 'no ai included by default' you meant that you do keep a nook open for it, though.

and it looks like that is the case.
you people made Libreoffice without slop before now. lose your principles, but maybe also be honest about it.

and don't say you check each slop line, either

we know you don't. we know your reviewers and the submitters will not.

if you can't even write it, you don't know it, and if you don't know it, giving it a 'look over' is useless.

I could write rocket launch code with ai
and maybe I'd give it a look over before I launch it
but that doesn't mean I knew what to look for, it doesn't mean I could understand a vulnerability if I saw it
and maybe my rocket could get people killed
(inb4 'don't worry, ai is used to check the ai's work!')

what ai makes it slop
whether you review the ai, or not

maybe libreoffice would like to purchase the finest of my NFTs?
I also have a few bridges

[thisisfroggie@hachyderm.io]

@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.

[barubary@infosec.exchange]

@svavar @serak Nah, 'twas a fair question.

[tcd@oldbytes.space]

@libreoffice If the person can explain the code they can write it themselves. I really don't see the point

[solitarywalker@writing.exchange]

@libreoffice I like this. The person submitting the change needs to understand it, in order to take responsibility for it. And it allows people to be honest about AI use instead of forcing them to hide it, which would be the effect of a ban. Good place to draw the line.

[sharpcheddargoblin@reclusive.blog]

@libreoffice But you are accepting slop. Reviewed and understood (is it though?) slop is still slop. Take a fucking stand, cowards.

[ferroxo@infosec.exchange]

@libreoffice I'm sorry, but I switched from MS Office suite to LibreOffice explicitly to avoid LLM utilization at all levels. This doesn't inspire confidence at all.

[desantis@mastodon.bida.im]

@barubary Exactly. When did saying “No” to something become so taboo? Especially when there are legitimate concerns about this “technology”? Grow spines, yall.

[antonius@phpc.social]

@libreoffice ai generation is slop. Shame on you

[burningtyger@nrw.social]

@libreoffice Explaing every line requires another person to listen or read that explanation to every line which in turn could also be produced by ai. This is how it's done these days.

[laukidh@infosec.exchange]

@libreoffice but this is yet another lie. You have told us you accept slop, you’re just pretending it isn’t sloppy.

[davidgerard@circumstances.run]

@solitarywalker @libreoffice or you could ban and shame liars when you catch them, that works too

[usbtypesteve@infosec.exchange]

@libreoffice If you say you don't use AI, you don't use AI. Period. You are using AI which directly contradicts what you previously said. Questions?

[cyberquixote@infosec.exchange]

@libreoffice blocking your account because clearly all you’re doing is spreading misinformation now

[piepants@famichiki.jp]

@libreoffice I absolutely love when open source projects go on the defensive and twist themselves up like a pretzel over fucking semantics. You can't use "no slop" as a marketing stunt and then welcome it with open arms when it comes to submissions.

[lumi@snug.moe]

@libreoffice anything coming out of genai is slop; regurgitated human creations

please don't burn the planet and devalue human creations

please ban all slop (which means all genai/llm)

[efi@chitter.xyz]

@libreoffice contributing to the destruction of the planet is not very libre

[lumi@snug.moe]

@libreoffice please don't redefine "slop" to mean that some genai outputs somehow aren't slop. it's all slop, because it's soulless