2026-09-23 08:56 UTC
Replies (9)
-
@danigm@mastodon.social 2026-09-23 09:08
@alatiera@mastodon.social I really like this post. I would just replace "code" with "anything" in this phrase: > LLMs ("AI") can not be used to create or modify code submitted to GNOME, or hosted on GNOME infrastructure. Code, images, logos, doc, translations, designs, mockups, slides, etc. Everything is the same.
-
@bragefuglseth@sunny.garden 2026-09-23 09:17
@alatiera@mastodon.social I’d wholeheartedly support this.
-
@bram@gamedev.lgbt 2026-09-23 09:49
@alatiera@mastodon.social love this policy, gets to the point quickly and also the FAQ talks about the issues in a reasonable manner hope that we can see an LLM policy like this not only in GNOME, but also in more FOSS projects
-
@Cheeseness@mastodon.social 2026-09-23 10:52
@alatiera@mastodon.social Thank you for highlighting that so much of what ties the community together is a statement of and commitment to shared values (code of conduct, licence, etc.), which themselves aren't meaningfully more difficult to enforce than an LLM policy. I feel like I don't see this acknowledged enough in discussions of whether and how F/OSS can respond to pressure to allow LLM synthesised contributions.
-
@lunareclipse@snug.moe 2026-09-23 11:36
@alatiera@mastodon.social you can't fucking prove that you haven't used an LLM, I beg people to stop with witch hunts. I am for policies against low effort AI contributions, but when your policy is such that you'd rather reject a genuine hand crafted contribution than risk accepting some undisclosed AI code, I'm straight up not gonna bother with your project. I have already had one case where I spent half an hour writing feedback for something and was promptly banned for "AI generated text", and told my writing is shit even if it's not AI after appealing. This kind of thing happening is extremely insulting and frankly unforgivable.
-
@tautropfli@hachyderm.io 2026-09-23 13:44
@alatiera@mastodon.social where do I vote in favor of this? :)) I especially love the «you may be banned for trying to circumvent this» part.
-
@vancha@fosstodon.org 2026-09-23 13:53
@alatiera@mastodon.social nicely worded, I bet there's many more people that feel exactly like this, hopefully enough to see it implemented one day.
-
@aud@spectre.asta.lgbt 2026-09-23 19:05
@alatiera@mastodon.social > I think that the point of these statements is shaping *social norms* and not micro-managing developer workflows. They should be about signalling what kind of behavior we want, and what kind we reject. I think this is such a salient point that I haven't seen explicitly stated before (but implicitly debated). There's a million dollar (at least) marketing machine behind LLMs and plenty of anecdotes about the "times they've saved me a lot of time"* that tend to bog down the discussion and it inevitably gets closed as "too heated". Not to mention the bad faith arguments, claims without citations ("I don't think there's any environmental impact from LLMs at all"), etc. But it really is about longer term behavior than just a single PR or two, isn't it? Especially since it seems like a lot of the problems of LLMs don't manifest immediately (either in psychological impact or project code impact). * it is deeply ironic and frustrating that, when one points out that the existing statistics on long term use of the "statistical inference machine" do not support any claims of saved time or effort, none of the users of said large statistical inference machine think about it for even a millisecond and immediately dismiss it, if they even bother to respond.
-
@thankfulmachine@oldbytes.space 2026-09-24 21:27
@alatiera@mastodon.social based based based