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

[barubary@infosec.exchange]

@serak @libreoffice "You must be able to ..." is generally unverifiable. The hard requirements in this policy as I see them are:

1. The commit message must mention the name of the LLM product.
2. The commit message must mention the version of the LLM product.
3. 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.
4. 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:

• https://git.libreoffice.org/core/+/40da43ca14cd704456e95e4f2e7a840a8947ab93
• https://git.libreoffice.org/core/+/a75fb9d21d81f2cb35c796427bf9701664bfb57b
• https://git.libreoffice.org/core/+/bbb785af22564993c7d715b0c57880fe474ee517

[kierkegaanks@beige.party]

@libreoffice expecto puritans

[kimcrawley@stopgenai.org]

@libreoffice

[svavar@masto.svavar.com]

@barubary

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

@serak

[skjeggtroll@mastodon.online]

@libreoffice

It strikes me as odd to ban all use of LLM for the _commit message_, but still allow its use for the actual _code_.

[grampajoe@jorts.horse]

@libreoffice It wouldn't matter if the LLM code was perfect. You used the methane-powered exploitation machine.

[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