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 LibreSlop.
-
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 Started using LibraOffice about 3-4 years ago to reduce annoyances from MS Word. And loving it! Also grateful that it's compatible with Word so stuff I write can be read by people I work with.
-
@rzeta0 @libreoffice You’re being sarcastic, right?
-
@davidgerard @DamonWakes @libreoffice Ah, so a if AI writes 1+1=2, it's not true anymore, and jUsT sLoP? You guys are completely losing track ...
@kingsgambit @davidgerard @DamonWakes @libreoffice do you need an llm to write 1+1=2 ?
-
@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 ...
@kingsgambit Yes, very astute of you! If you read my toot, you'll find out that this is exactly what I meant and this response is not at all an attempt at a distraction by derailing the conversation into arguing irrelevant semantics!
Well spotted, I stand defeated forever and, as penitence will allow OpenAI to install ChatGPT in the brain of my firstborn child..
-
@kingsgambit @davidgerard @DamonWakes @libreoffice do you need an llm to write 1+1=2 ?
@peach @davidgerard @DamonWakes @libreoffice you get the point. If a human has put in the work to understand and verify each line of code, but maybe the implementation was done in an elegant way by an LLM in short time, then that is good code. The product is what counts. The fear behind SLOP callers is just that the code is unexplainable and mysterious, and you fix that by human review.
-
@kingsgambit Yes, very astute of you! If you read my toot, you'll find out that this is exactly what I meant and this response is not at all an attempt at a distraction by derailing the conversation into arguing irrelevant semantics!
Well spotted, I stand defeated forever and, as penitence will allow OpenAI to install ChatGPT in the brain of my firstborn child..
@VileLasagna you implied that it's still slop though, even with their restrictions, which require human review and understanding. So that fully translates to my example.
-
@peach @davidgerard @DamonWakes @libreoffice you get the point. If a human has put in the work to understand and verify each line of code, but maybe the implementation was done in an elegant way by an LLM in short time, then that is good code. The product is what counts. The fear behind SLOP callers is just that the code is unexplainable and mysterious, and you fix that by human review.
@kingsgambit @davidgerard @DamonWakes @libreoffice the term SLOP is the process though. It’s the lack of care and just using models that are 100% based on stolen works. The ends don’t justify the means. Sorry I don’t make the rules.
-
@VileLasagna you implied that it's still slop though, even with their restrictions, which require human review and understanding. So that fully translates to my example.
@kingsgambit Oh, apologies for the confusion, let me clarify:
Yes, it IS slop.
Whether the slop appears functional or correct of truthful or whatever is irrelevant. Slop is slop, that's just what it is.
Libreoffice is there arguing that they only allow the best slop in, you see, so it's fine. I am not interested in how much they like the slop that they approve, I still find said slop deeply repulsive.
Definitionally, LLM output is slop. People's opinions on the content don't change that fact
-
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".
"If you intend to use an LLM to make lots of patches in one area, start small to avoid having to make many changes after code review feedback."
As in you expect to have to change it more than usual code because it's so ass??
-
@kingsgambit @davidgerard @DamonWakes @libreoffice the term SLOP is the process though. It’s the lack of care and just using models that are 100% based on stolen works. The ends don’t justify the means. Sorry I don’t make the rules.
@peach @davidgerard @DamonWakes @libreoffice That's fine, but it's like deciding to keep running in a race where others are using cars. Sure, they might not be very talented, driving is not that complicated ("lack of care"), but they will overtake you. And leave you with a vulnerable, left-behind software product, if we shall leave the analogy and get back to the actual application here.
-
@kingsgambit Oh, apologies for the confusion, let me clarify:
Yes, it IS slop.
Whether the slop appears functional or correct of truthful or whatever is irrelevant. Slop is slop, that's just what it is.
Libreoffice is there arguing that they only allow the best slop in, you see, so it's fine. I am not interested in how much they like the slop that they approve, I still find said slop deeply repulsive.
Definitionally, LLM output is slop. People's opinions on the content don't change that fact
@VileLasagna Okay but then, since you are not arguing on the quality of the code and rather on the semantics of who wrote it, it's a little pointless as a critique? That's like saying "the code might be good but my neighbour, who I hate, wrote it, so it's shit".
-
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 "We" "do not" "accept" "any" ""slop""
-
@VileLasagna Okay but then, since you are not arguing on the quality of the code and rather on the semantics of who wrote it, it's a little pointless as a critique? That's like saying "the code might be good but my neighbour, who I hate, wrote it, so it's shit".
@kingsgambit Sure, and that sounds unreasonable because when you hear a hypothetical like that, you imagine everyday squabbles. Loud music, annoying dog, maybe some trash stank up the street once.
It also places the code itself as value neutral. It's just some code.
But neither of that apply, yeah? The reasons why people loathe LLMs so intensely are WAY beyond silly everyday stuff like that.
Even LO knows this, it's why they made their whole marketing stunt in the first place. [+1]
-
@kingsgambit Yes, very astute of you! If you read my toot, you'll find out that this is exactly what I meant and this response is not at all an attempt at a distraction by derailing the conversation into arguing irrelevant semantics!
Well spotted, I stand defeated forever and, as penitence will allow OpenAI to install ChatGPT in the brain of my firstborn child..
@VileLasagna
Why are you overreacting emotionally? Why can't you debate rationally? -
@kingsgambit Sure, and that sounds unreasonable because when you hear a hypothetical like that, you imagine everyday squabbles. Loud music, annoying dog, maybe some trash stank up the street once.
It also places the code itself as value neutral. It's just some code.
But neither of that apply, yeah? The reasons why people loathe LLMs so intensely are WAY beyond silly everyday stuff like that.
Even LO knows this, it's why they made their whole marketing stunt in the first place. [+1]
@kingsgambit I'm not going to talk about whether the safeguards they have means they CAN have good code or whatnot because this discussion IS a distraction.
If you're actually looking at the code and asking this question you've already skipped past some pretty fucking egregious reasons to not engage the fascist theft machine.
So... yeah. Slop bad, I'm sorry, the ship has sailed, sunk and we're all trapped drowning in it
-
@rzeta0 @libreoffice You’re being sarcastic, right?
-
@kingsgambit Oh, apologies for the confusion, let me clarify:
Yes, it IS slop.
Whether the slop appears functional or correct of truthful or whatever is irrelevant. Slop is slop, that's just what it is.
Libreoffice is there arguing that they only allow the best slop in, you see, so it's fine. I am not interested in how much they like the slop that they approve, I still find said slop deeply repulsive.
Definitionally, LLM output is slop. People's opinions on the content don't change that fact
I think you have a narrow worldview when it comes to the use of AI. To you, a "2" is not just another "2" if it's written by an LLM. That's seriously cringey.
-
@VileLasagna
Why are you overreacting emotionally? Why can't you debate rationally?@Gegenwind Sorry, mate (legit).
Internet being what it is, I can't tell if that's a sincere question or a sarcastic commiserate remark on how people use this sort of line of questioning to try and manipulate the conversation away to somewhere they can pretend this is a simple, technical and politically neutral conversation.
Your feed makes me inclined to believe you wouldn't be coming here in bad faith so I feel compelled to check
-
@rzeta0 @libreoffice I just asked a question.
