Reminder: #LibreOffice includes no AI features in the software.
-
@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
-
@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 @libreoffice Finally a reading in a broader sense.
The word 'slop' should be applied as a distinctive process with critical failures under four aspects: ethical, ecological, economical and technological.
Even if someone partially claims any (dubious) improvement in only one of them, the enormity of the whole spectrum it touches is still unchanged. The 'slop' feature is distinctivity.
-
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 Did the lawyers okay the incorporation of stolen and incompatibly-licenced code? I'd love to know how you were able to overcome this insurmountable hurdle but I suspect the answer is "trust us bro"
-
@nurglerider @kingsgambit @davidgerard @DamonWakes @libreoffice
Evil cannot create. Only steal and corrupt that which is good.
-- J.R.R. Tolkein.
@peach @nurglerider @kingsgambit @davidgerard @DamonWakes @libreoffice Fundamental requirements of free and open source software are correct attribution and adherence to licensing terms.
Scrapers are processing examples of code, stripping out their origins, and making correct attribution and adherence to licensing terms impossible.
This is one of the reasons we call it slop, because LLMs by design indiscriminately mix data from different sources.
A FOSS project that uses LLM-generated code is in violation of the fundamental principles of FOSS, and is no longer a FOSS project.
-
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".
LibreSlopfest
-
@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
Depends. If the rejection of slop is e.g. based on not wanting to boil the ocean or not wanting to work with someone who stole the worlds intellectual property, then "hating the neighbor" is a justified position.
@VileLasagna -
@nurglerider @peach @davidgerard @DamonWakes @libreoffice See, that's where we disagree. In my world, 1+1 will always equal 2. And if we want to value human over machine-generated things, then we should try not to leave reason behind as the first measure, because that's our common human denominator. But do in your world whatever you want.
@kingsgambit Sorry, how are we getting the LLM to arrive at 1 + 1 = 2? Because it isn't with math. LLMs can't handle that.
-
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 Libreoffice is now slop. WTF? Why is everyone so committed to taking everyone's choice away?
-
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 Too late. You burned a generation of goodwill by deliberately lying to mislead us all. An awful lot of people will never trust you again. To your staff: I'm sorry this is going to happen. To your C-suite: Get bent.
-
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 playing no true slopsman in here?
-
@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
"eco-socialist anti-bigtech" person dropping in to defend generative AI
@VileLasagna @libreoffice
