this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2026
317 points (87.5% liked)

Linux

15022 readers
613 users here now

A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)

Also, check out:

Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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

Example of a KDE dev not wanting environmental concerns to play any role, despite KDE having an environmental project:

Devs rejecting any notion of transparency by disclosing AI usage in code submissions (in direct opposition to advice from the FSFE):

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ColdWater@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 hours ago

I switched to Niri a few months ago as an experiment but now I guess I will not go back to KDE anytime soon

[–] AceFuzzLord@lemmy.zip 31 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

It starts with "oh, just clean up any code generated" and "you must understand what your code does" and then in a decade that person won't remember how to code at all because they self-lobotomized themselves for the convenience.

[–] soratoyuki@piefed.zip 69 points 23 hours ago (11 children)

If slop coding is so great why is everyone so adamant about hiding it from users?

If you're not willing to disclose something, maybe take that as a hint.

[–] Fierro@piefed.social 13 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

I feel like using ai is like using drugs, they're bad, but regulating them is muuuuuuuch better than just prohibiting, people will use it anyways.

It's not a one to one comparison but I feel encouraging witch hunts will definitely do more harm than normalizing it.

To be clear, I don't want it either, I'm acknowledging it's the lesser of two evils.

[–] latetolemmy@lemmy.world -3 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

I'm 12 and this is deep level of take right here

[–] Maddier1993@programming.dev 0 points 2 hours ago

I feel like using ai is like using drugs, they’re bad, but regulating them is muuuuuuuch better than just prohibiting, people will use it anyways.

crime won't happen because it is illegal?

[–] habitualTartare@lemmy.world 14 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

As a user, I think this is the biggest issue I have with this policy. Disclosure is a big part of open source and hiding whatever tools are used is fundamentally against that philosophy.

[–] fruitcantfly@programming.dev 9 points 20 hours ago

Would you be willing to expand on what you mean by disclosure being a big part of open source?

I ask because it has not been my experience that OSS developers have ever had a habit of disclosing what tools they use. If you are lucky then a repo has instructions for contributors, that may describe tools being used, or CI configuration for running tests and linters, but most projects have neither. Mostly you just get instructions for building the project, but sometimes not even that

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] kiarash@lemmychan.org 6 points 15 hours ago

The stupidity of bandwagoners is on full display in this comment section.

[–] nocteb@feddit.org 12 points 20 hours ago (5 children)

You cannot tell from the code necessarily anyway so anti-AI policies are hard to enforce. In the end the developer (or AI wielding human) is responsible for the code quality and its license which is what matters. All this discussion feels just like the usual culture war dividing the community. I’m more concerned about the intentions of people adding fuel to the fire.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 14 points 22 hours ago

time to stop donating then. Ai crap results in death by a thousand cuts.

[–] Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com 117 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (11 children)

the policy in question:

The golden rule for LLM usage in KDE is Don't be lazy:

  1. Don't try to use a tool to replace your own judgment, interpersonal communication, or learning process.

  2. Don't take unsustainable shortcuts.

  3. Don't avoid growing as a person.

The result will be poor-quality work that eventually becomes someone else's problem.

Nobody in KDE should know if you use an LLM — not because you're concealing it, but because your usage of it produces output indistinguishable from what you could produce yourself. Contributions with obvious and lazy LLM usage may be ignored or closed.

Using an LLM to generate contributions

KDE follows a "human in the loop" principle: you must be making decisions and adjustments beyond mere prompting. The output must express your unique humanity in some way.

  1. Don't be a "meat proxy". For example:
  2. Don't submit throwaway LLM-created changes as a "first draft or proof-of-concept for maintainers to improve".
  3. Don't submit "vibe-coded" changes you don't understand and couldn't make yourself.
  4. Don't disclose LLM usage as a way of trying to excuse the potential errors or poor quality of a contribution that you haven't put much effort into.
  5. Don't add "Assisted-by: [some LLM]" tags to your commits; it's just free advertising for the LLM's provider.

(emphasis original, except for the fourth bullet point)

[–] Shayeta@feddit.org 74 points 1 day ago (2 children)

"You are responsible for the code you submit, regardless of tools used."

Literally the same stance Linus had on Linux. I'm okay with it as long as it's enforced.

[–] realitaetsverlust@piefed.zip 19 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Yes, that's fine. And it's also easy to enforce - just treat any code as if it's written by a human (except obviously machine generated code like hardware descriptions etc).

Being against AI and LLMs is all fine and dandy, but it kinda takes ridiculous shape now.

However, I would prefer if open source tools would only allow the usage of open weight models and self-hosted systems. But then again, that's my idealism talking.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] pineapplelover@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 21 hours ago

This seems fine

[–] yetAnotherUser@lemmy.ca 32 points 1 day ago

This isn't a bad policy, but outright ignoring ethical and environmental concerns doesn't seem very wise either. That should still be discussed, even if this becomes the final version of the policy.

[–] HerbGrower@slrpnk.net 7 points 21 hours ago

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. Don't go saying "well chatgpt said it", no, you are responsible for it.

[–] MangoPenguin@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

This seems fine to me, it's all they can really do since banning AI entirely just isn't possible; someone could use it and submit very high quality code and no one would know AI was involved.

[–] HerbGrower@slrpnk.net 8 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

And if its very high quality, does it matter?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›