KDE and AI, and you, and me (pointieststick.com)
submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by to c/linux@programming.dev
 

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
[–] 6 points 1 week 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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment