Reminder: #LibreOffice includes no AI features in the software.
-
@kingsgambit @nurglerider @peach @davidgerard @libreoffice I don't know why you keep wheeling out this 1+1 thing as if LLMs aren't notorious for screwing up basic maths.
@DamonWakes @nurglerider @peach @davidgerard @libreoffice And I am getting desperate on why you guys can not understand the purpose of an analogy. Another try: If the code is correct, it's correct.
-
@DamonWakes @nurglerider @peach @davidgerard @libreoffice And I am getting desperate on why you guys can not understand the purpose of an analogy. Another try: If the code is correct, it's correct.
@kingsgambit @DamonWakes @nurglerider @davidgerard @libreoffice Have fun on the slop/slot machines. I'll stick to the real world where I use my own brain and dont outsource it all to a 3rd party fascist war-mongering llm company. (not an analogy)
-
@kingsgambit @peach @davidgerard @DamonWakes @libreoffice And again, as an AI bro, you make a post as though you are some profound thinker, focusing on some nonsense as an example while continuously ignoring the *PROBLEMS* of AI.
What is being touted as "Artifical Intelligence" is no such thing. It's an algorithm that is really good at pattern matching from source material. ALL of that source material is created by human beings. The "AI" can't create it can only steal.
@nurglerider @peach @davidgerard @DamonWakes @libreoffice Alright, I don't see much sense in continuing this discussion, have a nice day though, y'all.
-
@DamonWakes @nurglerider @peach @davidgerard @libreoffice And I am getting desperate on why you guys can not understand the purpose of an analogy. Another try: If the code is correct, it's correct.
@kingsgambit @nurglerider @peach @davidgerard @libreoffice I understand the purpose of an analogy perfectly well. I also understand why yours consistently fail to make the point you want them to.
-
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 that’s very disappointing.
-
@kingsgambit @nurglerider @peach @davidgerard @libreoffice I understand the purpose of an analogy perfectly well. I also understand why yours consistently fail to make the point you want them to.
Ah, and why is that so? Go on, make a point. Can you even summarise mine, so I can be sure you're even trying to understand my point?
-
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 Well, thanks for letting me know, actually, I don't use such software very often and so hadn't noticed. It is a pity I will have to stop using your software at all.
-
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 That's a "follow" from 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 Response towards fresh allegation would be appreciated
https://raphus.social/@MaddieM4/117513231532012154
Or, if being straightforward: https://github.com/LibreOffice/core/commit/bbb785af22564993c7d715b0c57880fe474ee517
-
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 Welp guess I'm going back to Notepad and save myself a few dollars
-
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 fucking cowards
-
@libreoffice Response towards fresh allegation would be appreciated
https://raphus.social/@MaddieM4/117513231532012154
Or, if being straightforward: https://github.com/LibreOffice/core/commit/bbb785af22564993c7d715b0c57880fe474ee517
@wannabe_alarmist @libreoffice
There is a response. It wasn't great IMHO, but I'll let you make up your own mind.
-
Ah, and why is that so? Go on, make a point. Can you even summarise mine, so I can be sure you're even trying to understand my point?
@kingsgambit @libreoffice No. I find it funnier to imagine you asking an LLM what 1+1 is, then confirming its accuracy with a calculator, all while insisting the rest of us are getting left behind.
-
@kingsgambit @libreoffice No. I find it funnier to imagine you asking an LLM what 1+1 is, then confirming its accuracy with a calculator, all while insisting the rest of us are getting left behind.
@DamonWakes @libreoffice alright, so no point made, just internet blah blah and patting yourself on the bias back. Bye then!
-
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 All LLM-generated code is slop, by definition.
Do not use fascist tools.
-
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".
-
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@fosstodon.org I use Libreoffice so I want to give the benefit of doubt but I am bit concerned here.
-
@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 point 1 and 2 is just doing unpaid promotion of 'AI' companies' services -
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 As someone who lived through the BSD wars, where the Business Software Alliance funded by Microsoft and others were trying like hell to destroy Linux and BSD with baseless accusations of unspecified copyright infringement on copyright AT&T Unix code, are you sure you want to add code to your project that's derived from projects that didn't consent to share code?
I know right now, the position is that this code can't be copyright because it doesn't have a human author, but whether it's considered derivative (and in many cases, it's almost identical to the code it was stolen from) is still up in the air. In the BSD wars, the accusations were demonstrably false, and it still took an incredible legal effort to defend against the accusations, kept BSD and Linux out of commercial applications for over a decade, and pushed BSD way back. In this case, the accusations could be demonstrably true. On a fairly complete, already working office suite, this doesn't seem like a smart move just for more features and fixes.
The fact that these LLM companies are ignoring robots.txt, DoSing indie sites off the net, using residential proxies on Samsung TVs to evade netblock bans, etc to steal content should be enough of a red flag that something is seriously wrong here, but if not, Microsoft's history of embrace-extending-extinguish is a thousand chapters long and getting free software to EEE themselves really is right up their alley. -
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".
In addition to the technical reasons not use LLM generated code...
Is that it's poopy butt.
The code is poopy butt.
I'm pretty sure the libreoffice needs tidying as a motivating principle
rather than freeform slop "fixes" and "features".
It's OK for people to not be programmers.
Also the people that use slop don't get to redefine what
slop means. "This is good slop" ... yeah OK.
no doesn't mean yes
