78
KDE and AI, and you, and me (pointieststick.com)
submitted 1 month ago by to c/linux@programming.dev
25 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
[–] 6 points 1 month ago (5 children)

How about extending some benefit of doubt to project like KDE? It has an excellent track record which can't be said for the likes like: Ubuntu, RedHat, Omarchy (duh), Mozilla, even Linux with GPLv2 vs GPLv3

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

    Yeah that's kind of where I'm at. KDE has been pretty right-on for as long as I can recall, and it looks like at the moment they're just discussing AI broadly, which I personally don't think is an unreasonable thing to do, but even that's enough to get everyone riled up at the moment. Obviously if they actually do something sketchy like adding AI slop into Plasma then I'll revise my opinion, but it doesn't look to me like they've done anything especially egregious so far.

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

    Xfce and Debian have long track records as well, yet both have adopted permissive AI policies.

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

    And has the quality dropped? I agree that this increases the likelihood of bad code/docs etc. and that developers will need greater self-control. But I think the conversation should try to frame the question similarly as C memory safety. Yes its dangerous but despite the possibility of bugs we have lots of good software written in it.

    Of course one can object on more fundamental grounds...there then can be little conversations, instead we have persuasion.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (1 reply)