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

[ahltorp@mastodon.nu]

@desantis @TCD @libreoffice 30 years ago when I graded computer science students, since we had no way of knowing if they actually wrote the code themselves, all we had to go on was how well they could explain what they had done and answer questions about it.

But you can’t truthfully answer questions like ”why did you do it like this” when you haven’t done it yourself. And that goes for code that your friend wrote as well as generated code. And the why is important, perhaps the most important.

[numodular@c.im]

@digipooch I was sincerely surprised OnlyOffice also integrated AI.

We're in deep doo-doo.

[desantis@mastodon.bida.im]

@ahltorp @TCD @libreoffice This is the way. And, don't get me wrong, sometimes explaining something highly technical in layman's terms can be challenging, yet it is not impossible.

[knowprose@mastodon.social]

@libreoffice since I don't work on the code, and it has worked well decades, I have to trust that major and minor releases will be properly tested.

It's an issue of trust.

There's not much trust for llm use, as the responses show.

Llm use has become ubiquitous. The case for technical debt is there.

I choose to trust the project until proven I cannot.

The concerns are real, the stakes are high for digital sovereignty.

[rzeta0@mastodon.world]

@libreoffice

Excellent!

A rare bit of good news.

[legit_spaghetti@mastodo.neoliber.al]

@libreoffice And this, kids, is what we call a cop out.

[justsoup@mstdn.social]

@libreoffice So, this policy is just that your project points out the issues with LLMs, states that it is probably not good for someone to use them, limits the uses, and then makes a *blatent exception* for the worst use-cases of LLMs.

This policy is basically the green-washing of LLM policies.

People who write patches with LLMs generally do not read the policies around them, so unless it is a stupid simple yes or no, these things are bikeshed forever. I don't envy your future review process.

[numodular@c.im]

@libreoffice Wait, people don't want their critical data stolen by obese Tech Bros, and organizations like LibreOffice have to appease both the greedy data miners, AND their customers?

Welcome to Capitalism greed, where 'too much' is never too much. Ultimately, you'll move toward 'maximizing profits', so may as well proceed as usual, with superficial reassurances, then fully folding to classic abuse of power.

[patpro@social.patpro.net]

@Ferroxo @libreoffice
Yeah, not cool.
I wish you could (at every level) banish LLM usage in LibreOffice development. We don’t want a fast development of LibreOffice, new features every week. LLM is only a way to push more new code faster. It has no other role in software development.

[newshund@mastodon.social]

@libreoffice Boo.

[melibb@mastodon.social]

@libreoffice @manorag

[cushee_foofee@uwu.social]

@libreoffice "It doesn't rewrite your content"

False, I have a list of songs that I like (Started making it YEARS ago when my Youtube playlist kept deleting videos/songs that I saved). Whenever I add a - dash - between the artist and song name, hitting space after the song name changes the dash into a bigger dash.

I also had to fight tooth and nail to figure out how to stop LibreOffice writer from auto-correcting words, because it thought I misspelled certain words.

So no, Libreoffice DOES rewrite the things I type down, and can be quite annoying for that.

[countholdem@mastodon.social]

@numodular #DemSoc

[flit@guild.pmdcollab.org]

@libreoffice
stop redefining our feedback to suit your narrative. we want NONE of this. your policy should be a flat "this is not allowed", PERIOD. no alternatives.

instead of trying to do damage control PR as if you're trying to sell me something, you should just fix the damn problem. that's all we care about.

[geeksam@ruby.social]

@libreoffice as Yoda might say: have it both ways you cannot.

[celesteh@hachyderm.io]

@libreoffice

It seems like you guys were trying to go for a reasonable compromise, but I really don't think one exists. You allow slop or you don't. You've picked slop*.

I would like to strongly urge you to reconsider this. Your software is important and matters too much for this.

* Which is to say, plagiarism and the potential loss of copyright of your project across several jurisdictions - things which have nothing to do with code quality. You are putting your use of an open license at risk in order to seem "reasonable".

[loathsome_dongeater@toots.matapacos.dog]

@libreoffice you know a technology is good and cool when you have to write a ten point note on how it must not be used. that's when you know it is ready for prime time.

[afoucart@social.sciences.re]

@libreoffice That's really sad to read. What's the point of FOSS if we're going to be dependent on LLMs (i.e. the worst of Big Tech) for any future development anyway? Because yes, that's unavoidable once you open the gates to LLM-written code. Human contributors *will* start to lose control and knowledge of the codebase.

[kingsgambit@social.vivaldi.net]

@VileLasagna @libreoffice Ah, so a if AI writes 1+1=2, it's not true anymore, and jUsT sLoP? You guys are completely losing track ...

[iscarlosmolero@landofooo.social]

@libreoffice Still slop, guys. Still sending training data to who? Claude? Codex?

Still fucking up the world.