335
KDE is actively proposing a Pro-AI contribution policy, with most rejecting any suggestions for AI use to be disclosed, or any consideration for environmental concerns (invent.kde.org)
submitted 1 month ago by to c/linux@programming.dev
151 comments fedilink hide all child comments
😭 2
 

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

Example of KDE dev rejecting environmental consideration:

Example of KDE devs not wanting to require LLM use be disclosed.

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 15 points 1 month ago (5 children)

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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 22 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    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.

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

    I'm with you, but the sad reality is that, unlike Wine devs, AI devs can't be assumed to act in good faith.

    Potential Wine devs who have seen Windows source code will self enforce the rules, because they care about their integrity and the integrity of the project.

    AI devs already don't have an integrity, and they feel smug and superior for actively trying to fool any sort of measure against AI. They also seem to believe AI is the future and isn't going away, so why bother regulating it if it won't matter soon.

    We need to come up with stricter and more effective ways to regulate and ban AI use, and that's gonna be the difference between an unusable codebase and a great one in a few years.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago

    Sure, but that doesn’t mean that it can’t go into the contribution guidelines. If they don’t listen then ok, you remove commits that have claude watermarking. Without that guideline you can’t stop the PRs at all.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -6 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    Nobody said anything about enforcing it. Just put it in the contribution guidelines!! Like for fucks sake, this is like saying you shouldn’t have a law saying you can’t murder people out at sea because it’s impossible to police. The threat of action is half of the reason people don’t do bad things. There’s ZERO REASON to not have it in the guidelines.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent