The way Nate is framing the original intent of the proposal, that KDE was swamped with AI slop and they just needed a quick policy that would allow them to comfortably reject it, doesn’t seem quite accurate. If that was all they needed, it seems like it would’ve been quite easily to propose an ad-hoc policy of allowing maintainers to reject suspected AI slop PRs at will, which would solve the immediate problem while allowing them to gather more feedback on a ‘proper’ policy. Adding a provision to not require any AI disclosure doesn’t help with the stated goal of just wanting a way to easily reject slop.

I’ve read the positions of some of the developers involved in the proposal thread on other platforms, and most have made it very clear that they are pro-AI (I do not include Nate among them, as he has stated he actually dislikes AI and doesn’t use it). Among that group, the concerns about AI ethics and their use are, ultimately, of secondary concern over the prospect of increased productivity and time savings. That inclination is what resulted in so little credence given to the people raising concerns against it in the proposal thread (it was clear that the concept of not accepting AI code, or even just limiting it to self-hosted models, was not on the table from the outset).

Nate is clearly distressed from the negative reaction the proposal has caused, and I can sympathize with that. However, from what I’ve read of his responses on his linked blog, IMHO it is mostly damage control, and still isn’t addressing the main concerns people had about the original policy proposal. When people point out the copyright, environmental, and ethical issues, Nate will acknowledge those, but insists that the original proposal, by virtue of it allowing them to quickly reject obvious AI code, would’ve been an improvement (despite it also giving the provision that AI use didn’t have to be disclosed, essentially meaning that those skillful enough to make it not obvious will still be perpetuating the ethical, environmental, and copyright issues, but just in the dark without anyone knowing the severity).

In the linked blog post, many of the comments are saying that KDE effectively closed down most avenues to provide feedback on the proposal, thus leaving them with essentially the only option of making the KDE For People open letter, as otherwise it appeared that any public dissent against a permissive AI policy was ultimately going to be dismissed as the Pro-AI group decided on a policy behind closed doors.

Their justification for planning to make it a closed door decision was two people in the proposal thread, both of which easily could’ve been removed from the thread, or the thread closed to developers only, and their discussion could’ve continued without any difficulty. I personally don’t believe their justification, as it clearly seems like it was closed and ultimately made hidden to avoid the public relations fallout the main discussion was having for being so dismissal of the AI concerns brought up.

I invite anyone curious to read the blog and the comments below, and come to their own conclusion.