Direct link to the LLM Policy Discussion: https://invent.kde.org/plasma/plasma-workspace/-/work_items/187

Example of a KDE dev not wanting environmental concerns to play any role, despite KDE having an environmental project:

Devs rejecting any notion of transparency by disclosing AI usage in code submissions (in direct opposition to advice from the FSFE):

And all of this is coming right after the debacle with an AI slop project being allowed to give a presentation at Akademy, and the person asking how this was allowed being blocked by KDE:

https://lemmy.nz/post/42029517

as well as the discussion thread bringing up legitimate concerns about AI usage being closed:

https://discuss.kde.org/t/sorry-to-bring-up-a-contentious-topic-kde-ai-llm-policy/46333/164

As someone who genuinely loves KDE, and has even donated to the project multiple times, I sadly have to accept that the majority of KDE have hopped onto the Pro-AI train, and they will not be dissuaded otherwise.

  • Richard@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    7 hours ago

    It’s a actually completely reasonable proposal

    It all comes down to one thing - understand the LLM generated code you want to submit, and use the LLM for nothing else than write code, like making other people having to read LLM text. This is a whole lot like the kernel’s LLM policy.

    Niko is right, the environmental corcern is not something this policy should go against - what can they do despite ban LLM usage altoguether (and per consequence get LLM generated code submitted anyway), they can’t have a blacklist for models, or force contributors to run them on their local hardware.

    • tyler@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      what can they do despite ban LLM usage altoguether (and per consequence get LLM generated code submitted anyway), they can’t have a blacklist for models, or force contributors to run them on their local hardware.

      But they can? Like OP pointed out, wine forbids contributions from those that have seen Windows source code. How in the world are they supposed to enforce that? Turns out the open source community is pretty good at self enforcing.

      • Richard@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        5 hours ago

        I don’t think the average person who wants to contribute to wine has seen windows source code in the first place.

        It is much easier to attempt on enforcing something like this that to enforce a full ban on AI. The problem is that AI has a much higher exposure rate than the windows source code.