327
submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net to c/linux@programming.dev

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 39 points 1 day ago

It makes no distinction between self-hosted LLMs or Corportate LLMs, and disregards the dangers of using LLM code in FLOSS projects due to copyright concerns and the environmental and social damage corporate AI causes. For more details:

  1. Simply using an AI that's run on a corporate data centers encourages the construction of yet more data centers, with all of the environmental/climate negatives they bring, as well as local harms they induce on the people living near them, such as increased electricity rates.

  2. Using corporate AI directly helps the financial situations of those giant corporations (by boosting usage/user numbers, they are able to attract more investment capital), most of which are ran by right-wing CEOs who are more than willing to collaborate with and fund fascist governments to ensure that they are not regulated in search of both maximum profits. Some of these companies, such as Nvidia, Palantir and Oracle, genuinely appear to be seeking to use these tools for what would previously be considered crackpot conspiracy theory levels of public control and surveillance.

  3. I'm wary of the potential effects of AI usage resulting in declining or stagnating critical thinking based on some preliminary studies (example 1, example 2).

  4. I do not think LLMs can be "just a tool" as many claim.

  5. 99% of LLMs (the ones virtually everyone use) are trained on copyrighted code that is incompatible with GPL licensed projects. LLMs have a 3 to 10% chance to unknowingly reproduce the copyrighted code perfectly, introducing legal plagiarism into an open-source project, which could easily open up the developers to being sued in the future if companies scanned open source repos for copyright violations.

  6. Many courts are ruling that LLM generated code cannot be copyrighted at all, meaning that it also cannot be legally made GPL, losing the protections from corporate exploration the GPL normally grants. https://fsfe.org/news/2026/news-20260825-01.html

[-] Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)
  1. I would indeed see a lot of benefits with only allowing self-hosted genAI. I wonder how practical it is to enforce that, and such a policy would IIRC be first of its kind, but I'd like to see it; I won't dispute this.
  2. those are about use of AI to replace critical thinking ( resulting in stagnating critical thinking, not coding. to show the point you want to make, you'd need to find a study about the effect of LLM use on code quality—not learning, code quality, since we're talking about seasoned KDE devs here.^[1]^
  3. I don't like this debate because "just a tool" is not a very defined phrase. How I see it, it means AI needs to be used carefully and using it lazily is misuse that results in dangerous things, but the term's also too often carelessly misused to mean very dangerous things (ironic?), so I see the reason in arguing against it and the meaningless derived from lack of agreed meaning. Let's just say it's powerful (💥) and call it a day.
  4. I would've said this was a good point a year or two ago. the legal environment is clearly not heading thataway (plus, politically, I don't think property should exist.)
  5. Combing through, identifying, and only copying public domain portions of the code is too much of a hassle that they'd use an LLM to do it. Public domain for everybody!

[1] I found https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-83911-5_8 and https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-90573-5_7. The first some seems awesome and finds that ChatGPT code for small, one-function–type tasks (somewhat more pragmatic than Leetcode but only somewhat) was better than human code from GitHub in aggregate. I would wait for more studies before going to conclusions. The second one says "delves into" in the abstract and has 32 pages so even though I'm guessing it wasn't AI-generated I ain't reading allatritenow

this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2026
327 points (87.9% liked)

Linux

15014 readers
562 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