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.
In my view having a healthy discussion about this is a good thing. People will always have different views in many things, and it is natural that a common ground is achieved by having a honest debate about a given subject.
With the above in mind, hardline 100% pro or 100% con points of view are usually wrong and counterproductive, and even framing the discussion that way is harmful. I hope the discussion leads to a good and reasonable outcome.
I view AI as a pure evil platform that is terrible for the environment and trained on stolen data. IMO there is no discussion to be had, it should be banned period.
To me, it’s like discussing how much domestic abuse is allowed in a relationship. I say zero tolerance where someone else could say they think it should be fully allowed, and then a middle person thinks that we should be trying to find a common ground.
The difference is that every form of domestic abuse is awful and should face zero tolerance, whereas with “AI tools” there is still nuance in what that phrase means.
Even if we talk specifically about generative AI, there are models trained on only licensed data, and it’s possible to train and run models locally for the specific tasks that it is good for. The end of the day, it is an algorithm and there are some tasks that it is better at doing.
The point the other user is making is that a contribution policy should take those factors into account.
IMO a more effective principled stance would be to ban the use of specific “AI” tools that are proven to be abusive.