Discussion
Okay. If the LibreOffice promotional posting about their "keep AI optional so people can do office stuff without it" stance was persuasive to you, and you gave them money, you have been defrauded. And you should demand your money back. And we should all be ever more skeptical of carefully-worded "nuanced stances."
No money for quislings.
https://circumstances.run/@davidgerard/117510420175177743
https://blog.documentfoundation.org/blog/2026/09/03/yes-no-ai-is-now-a-feature/
@ramblingsteve In my experience, there's actually quite a lot of people who got into software for the love of the game, and find the current trends offensive.
It's really more a matter of - the people who don't care are more equipped to do harm than the people who care are equipped to do good (classic creation vs destruction dilemma), and in projects with both factions present (any project of consequential scale), there are plenty of neutral people who think "some AI" is a compromise that will allow everyone to get along, when actually it allows AI fans to colonize and cuckoo the entire project until it's unpalatable to anyone else.
@MaddieM4 @ramblingsteve They are waging a war. Push slop commits in all Open Source projects; make AI unseverable. Even if a project stays out of it, or rejects most commits, one is bound to make it through, and one is enough for them to make their scoreboard of "we got em, you lose."
They're accusing us of demanding an impossible purity test; yet they deliberately spread the infection.
@MaddieM4
Although the didn't say they weren't going to use it just "there will be no AI of any kind in the default installation".
However, one thing sort of implies the other.
If the committer cannot explain, in their own words, what and how they came to that solution, this should rejected.
@gvlx Right, which is where I was going with the "nuanced stances" jab.
They knew they were making that implication. They relied on that implication for marketing. And they knew they had no intentions to actually keep the core codebase free of LLM contributions.
The thing about setting that kind of slimy precedent is that now everything you say needs to be examined as legalese, rather than understood in terms of simple good faith sentiment. Even if it wasn't about LLMs - a thing I have a hard personal boundary about - I really don't want to do business with a sketchy org that requires a baseline distrust filter applied to everything they say.
@MaddieM4 @gvlx From your own wording of what they said, I understood too they will not have any AI features in the app. And this at the moment still is true? However, you asumed/wished/expected that this means also no AI controbutions in code. They never said that.
Kinda unfair to blame them, and also again, assume, they did that on purpose. Anyone could have asked them to clarify AI usage in code contribution, and seems nobody asked to clarify.
@Chapz This is a really legalistic take. That (a) they will explain if asked, and (b) we should ask them before judging. I don’t think either is true.
The point @MaddieM4 made, which is valid, is exactly this legalistic point: since their broad-brush proclamation about “No AI is a feature” can coexist with “AI is a contributor,” we all have to parse what they say far more finely. They lose trust.
If that’s the ODF’s stance (and I know you don’t speak for them, it’s just hypothetical), then we shouldn’t assume anything more that the black letter of what they write (or give them the benefit of doubts) because they’re reserving the right to be tediously legalistic.
@MaddieM4 to me this is a sign that i no longer need word processors.
is that what you will of me, Hashem?
@cyberquixote @MaddieM4 I would strongly consider going plain text and using Pandoc to convert into whatever later. Here just one of my work flows https://sightlessscribbles.com/posts/shun/
@WeirdWriter @cyberquixote @MaddieM4 sadly Pandoc started chugging the slop a while back.
Oh and I have to keep saying this, but I do not want to hear a fucking word about how "projects need committee leadership, that would solve these problems" when COMMITTEE-LED PROJECTS DO THIS CONSTANTLY.
While usually being irreplaceable because of infrastructure investment in ways that individual-led projects are usually not.
I hate to have this chip on my shoulder but I'm so done at this point.
@MaddieM4 LO has a committee leading it!
Install Fedizen
Get the full app experience
@MaddieM4 so many people are just not writing code anymore because the clanker can give it to them immediately. there's barely anybody left who works by hand anymore. I don't know if any group authored project won't be this way now. we would need to build our own operating systems and applications from scratch, and even then I suspect somebody would be quietly prompting in the background. It appeals to a very basic appeal for the quick and easy solution that people can't resist. it makes me sad.