Disallow or discourage use of "AI" tools (Christoph Cullmann)

[Konstantin Kharlamov]

On Thu, 2025-05-15 at 16:09 +0200, Felix Ernst wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Late reply, but I also wanted to mention that I am 100% in support of
> any anit-AI messaging and policies we might choose.
> 
> The wording as linked by Akseli in their first post seems like a good
> starting point in that regard:
> 
> > Other projects have already done something similar, see for
> > example: 
> > https://discourse.gnome.org/t/loupe-no-longer-allows-generative-ai-contributions/27327
> 
> The only use of AI I support needs all its training data to be
> licenced in a way that allows use for the AI training e.g. CC0 or
> WTFPL licence. This way I don't see ethical issues because the
> copyright holders have then given some sort of consenst for this use.
> 
> I wouldn't even mind if we went one step further and actively
> promoted e.g. Plasma as "free of AI". This does not need to be fully
> true, but this would be more of an activism and marketing angle I
> would like to see. There is a good chance though that this would not
> be a good use of our time but it would align with KDE Eco IMO. (I
> know that there are also great uses of AI, but public messaging needs
> to be clear and easy to understand, and there is still enough pro-AI
> marketing out there to the point that taking the opposite stance
> seems sensible to me.)

I'm not sure taking fully opposite stance would be beneficial for
anyone. Pro-AI has a point. And most anti-AI people from my experience
are actually anti-unlicensed-AI, i.e. not anti-AI in general. That's
because full "anti-AI" has no benefits, so there's not much people, who
actually are fully anti-AI. Hence, making public stance "we're all
anti-AI" would be harmful, not only in marketing sense, but also
technologically, because it would require all KDE apps maintainers to
remove support for AI tools (think of Kate completion plugins for
example), which sounds like a nice way to introduce conflict in the
community.