So I accidentally triggered an online shitstorm in the process of trying to craft a set of more restrictive LLM usage guidelines for KDE. Sorry about that. :/ I’m going to leave the comments …

Personal opinion: Nathan seems to be really side-stepping a lot of concerns brought of up in the comments there. And referring to people coming together collectively in an open-letter when virtually all other channels are closed as ‘brigading’ is… Not cool. Edit: he retracted the use of brigading.

  • Feyd@programming.dev
    0·
    15 hours ago

    Did you stop reading there? Here is your quote + the next paragraph

    So yeah, bad stuff. I completely understand why a lot of people have problems with LLMs. I have these concerns as well.

    I also understand why a lot of experts in their field really like LLMs. These are very powerful and sophisticated tools. Capable people with decades of experience can successfully automate away a lot of tedious work, and still end up with a final product identical to what they would have done by hand.

    I don’t think that conclusion is even accurate and it’s certainly the subject of much debate. He then crunches all of both negative and positive into a 5 bullet list that makes it look much more balanced:

    • Very powerful
    • Genuinely useful for various things
    • Dangerous, de-skilling, and/or addictive in the wrong hands
    • Full of really bad externalities
    • Broadly available worldwide at effectively zero cost

    You’re apparently reading it differently but it looks to me like half the article is trying to funnel into justifying making this a difficult decision after making the case for it really not to be up front. Why do that?