79
KDE and AI, and you, and me (pointieststick.com)
submitted 5 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) by to c/linux@programming.dev
38 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Personal opinion: Nathan seems to be really side-stepping a lot of concerns brought of up in the comments there. And referring to people coming together collectively in an open-letter when virtually all other channels are closed as 'brigading' is... Not cool. Edit: he retracted the use of brigading.

EDIT 2: Nate has since closed the comments on his blog, and the one discussion thread on KDE Discuss about the AI Policy was closed suddenly without explanation after a KDE developer began to discuss the ethics of AI use. Nate then responded after the thread was closed with this:

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 8 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)

literally the next sentence after the reasons, he calls LLMs "bad stuff". That does not sound like "equal weight on the scale" to me.

So yeah, bad stuff. I completely understand why a lot of people have problems with LLMs. I have these concerns as well.

I agree that the license issue should be enough to not touch anything generated by AI, to not taint the codebase

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 4 days ago (1 child)

    Did you stop reading there? Here is your quote + the next paragraph

    So yeah, bad stuff. I completely understand why a lot of people have problems with LLMs. I have these concerns as well.

    I also understand why a lot of experts in their field really like LLMs. These are very powerful and sophisticated tools. Capable people with decades of experience can successfully automate away a lot of tedious work, and still end up with a final product identical to what they would have done by hand.

    I don't think that conclusion is even accurate and it's certainly the subject of much debate. He then crunches all of both negative and positive into a 5 bullet list that makes it look much more balanced:

    • Very powerful
    • Genuinely useful for various things
    • Dangerous, de-skilling, and/or addictive in the wrong hands
    • Full of really bad externalities
    • Broadly available worldwide at effectively zero cost

    You're apparently reading it differently but it looks to me like half the article is trying to funnel into justifying making this a difficult decision after making the case for it really not to be up front. Why do that?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •