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 I absolutely love when open source projects go on the defensive and twist themselves up like a pretzel over fucking semantics. You can't use "no slop" as a marketing stunt and then welcome it with open arms when it comes to submissions.
-
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 anything coming out of genai is slop; regurgitated human creations
please don't burn the planet and devalue human creations
please ban all slop (which means all genai/llm) -
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 contributing to the destruction of the planet is not very libre
-
@libreoffice anything coming out of genai is slop; regurgitated human creations
please don't burn the planet and devalue human creations
please ban all slop (which means all genai/llm)@libreoffice please don't redefine "slop" to mean that some genai outputs somehow aren't slop. it's all slop, because it's soulless
-
@libreoffice I absolutely love when open source projects go on the defensive and twist themselves up like a pretzel over fucking semantics. You can't use "no slop" as a marketing stunt and then welcome it with open arms when it comes to submissions.
@piepants Hello, I checked out your profile and thought I'd stop by and say hello. How's your day going?
-
@piepants Hello, I checked out your profile and thought I'd stop by and say hello. How's your day going?
@Gornes Ha, no. You've got balls spamming an admin.
-
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 libreoffice is epic :3 -
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 "skill atrophy and the risks of harm to cognitive abilities"
-
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 it’s OK, Libre office. I will still use you., virtual hugz
-
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 but guys, EVERY changed line!!!
-
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 this seems like it would be much harder to enforce in practice than a full-on ban
-
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 you are awful pricks!
-
It strikes me as odd to ban all use of LLM for the _commit message_, but still allow its use for the actual _code_.
@skjeggtroll @libreoffice If I was any less staunchly against it in general, I'd do the opposite.
-
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 Ah the old scare quotes around “slop” to show that you literally have no clue what your former users mean when we say AI slop. We mean the output of an LLM. Any output. That is the definition of AI slop. The stochastic data stream that LLMs output. Your “strict” policy strictly allows slop (stochastic output from LLMs) to be submitted by trying to redefine it as “not slop.” You can inspect the slop. You can review the slop. You can even pin a ribbon on the slop and put lipstick on it, but it is still slop. If it came from an LLM, it is slop.
-
@ciatmusings @libreoffice i am pretty sure this guy is just like this, and also i think it's the same one who floated LibreOffice doing blockchain a few years ago
@davidgerard @libreoffice like i hope he gets *something* substantial out of being the guy pelted by rotten produce for bootlicking gymnastics. minimum wage at least
-
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".
unfuckingbelievable.
Couldn't resist that fat Big Tech/VC/Private Equity contribution wad of money eh?
-
@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 I can't even look at these commits on my phone cause Anubis is set to such a high standard it has been calculating hashes for multiple minutes and 2% of the battery charge
-
@davidgerard @libreoffice like i hope he gets *something* substantial out of being the guy pelted by rotten produce for bootlicking gymnastics. minimum wage at least
@ciatmusings @libreoffice i think he's in it for the love of the game
-
@barubary @serak @libreoffice I can't even look at these commits on my phone cause Anubis is set to such a high standard it has been calculating hashes for multiple minutes and 2% of the battery charge
@mezza @barubary @libreoffice On my phone it takes around 30 seconds which also is ridiculously long, I don't want to do that on a 15 year old ThinkPad.
-
@libreoffice please don't redefine "slop" to mean that some genai outputs somehow aren't slop. it's all slop, because it's soulless
@lumi@snug.moe @libreoffice@fosstodon.org also, a "must be able to explain it" policy puts the weight on the shoulders of code review team to catch those who can't explain their code. Those who vibe code have a tendency to have zero concerns for the labor they offload onto others by using these data regurgitation tools, tools that typically do things more complicated than necessary and add unneeded and unwanted functions unasked.
