Interest in building an LLM frontend for KDE

[Felix Ernst]

+1 to what Ethan B. said i.e.:

 > I am anti-LLM on the grounds that the training sets were created without the original authors' consent. I see no issue with a libre/ethical LLM, if there is one, though. If a developer or team of developers wants to implement a Qt and KDE-integrated LLM app, I have no problem with that, but I believe KDE as an organization should probably steer clear of such a thorny subject. It's sure to upset a lot of users no matter what position is taken. On the other hand, for those people who do make use of AI tools, a native interface would be nice, especially one as feature-ful as you're describing...

>>Should we limit support to open models like Llama 2 or would we be OK with adding API support for proprietary models like GPT-4?

As Andre said, there is not much reason to discuss this if it can be implemented "generalized and backend agnostic". Aside from that, I want us to be aware though that if we are steering users towards using LLMs created by known bad actors (which all big LLM companies currently seem to be), we give those bad actors power to manipulate and lie to users, which undoubtedly will happen more and more if LLMs manage to establish themselves as a middleman between users and the more valuable training data. However, if the frontend you want to start allows users to choose a LLM to work with, and we can even recommend users one LLM over the other there, then this shouldn't be a problem.

>>Should we be joining the mainstream push to put AI into everything or should we stand apart and let Microsoft have its fun focusing on AI instead of potentially more useful features?

I personally wouldn't want to spend my time on what you are planning to do. I don't think there is much to gain there. At the end of the day, everyone can decide this for themselves though.

Cheers,
Felix