A proposal to make KDE an “AI-native” desktop has gone down like a house on fire: screams, flames, people running for safety. There may be no survivors.*

Last weekend was KDE’s annual Akademy conference and it included a presentation proposing an AI-native KDE. We noted that it seemed likely to polarize the audience. It looks like this was a considerable understatement.

In the days since, a debate over proposed restrictions on LLM-assisted contributions descended into bans and a deleted thread. An outside campaign called for KDE to prohibit AI altogether, a GNOME developer proposed a similar policy for that project, and KDE developer Nate Graham apologized for his role in the uproar.

The Akademy talk was titled “A lovable, sovereign, AI-native KDE” and the slide deck [PDF] is now available. It ends by saying: “The question is not whether AI. It is how. You choose how much AI – and which.”

It seems almost calculated to provoke an argument rather than invite discussion. We do not know if the authors intended this – we attempted to contact both of them, but they have not yet responded.

Graham opened a discussion on Invent, KDE’s GitLab instance, about proposed restrictions on LLM-assisted contributions. Although we are not a member, we watched this with some interest over the weekend. It rapidly became heated. Moderators issued warnings, restricted further comments, and eventually removed the thread.

There is an archive of the discussion, but we warn you, it contains some highly offensive language, albeit censored by the member who quoted another member’s tweets on X. As events unfolded, the participant who drew attention to the posts was banned first. The author of the offensive material was banned later after their identity was verified.

The discussion is gone, but the argument continues.

One response was an outside initiative called KDE for People, which called on the KDE project to adopt a No-AI policy. Around 250 people signed it before its organizers closed it to further signatures.

GNOME developer Jordan Petridis has also published The GNOME LLM Policy That I Want, proposing that LLMs be barred from creating or modifying anything submitted to GNOME or hosted on its infrastructure.

This mentions the recent ballot on AI usage in Debian. We reported on the developer referendum about a month ago, noting that the broad spread of anti-AI options in the ballot was likely to split the vote. (This likelihood was dismissed in the comments.) Well, as The Register’s Asia-Pacific desk reported a few days later, Debian did not ban AI contributions.

Graham subsequently explained his involvement in a post titled KDE and AI, and you, and me. He opens by saying: “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.”

He notes that the Akademy talk met “what I’m told was a fairly chilly reception” and that “the next day, a workshop was held about the topic, also receiving a chilly reception.”

Every couple of years, the KDE project sets three goals for the next two years. Earlier this week, after Akademy, it chose its latest three: you can see them in the last column of the goal-setting Kanban board. The ones chosen are:

KDE for Enterprise and Deployments (Issue #5)

Better documentation (Issue #2)

Next Generation Styling for KDE (Issue #3)

We see no mention of AI in there. In context, that may come as a relief to parts of the community.

Bootnote

*A tip of the black Borsalino to the late great Terry Pratchett, for two different “house on fire” references we combined. ®

  • At times I’m starting to feel like there’s some sort of AI-derangement syndrome starting to take a hold of people. Some dude proposed a AI-dekstop thing (as a joke or a provocation, I feel like), everyone reacted to that proposal with a “what? lol, no.” then some media reports “KDE wants to turn into a AI-desktop!”, someone posts that to Lemmy (not this thread, a earlier one from a few days ago) and people lose their fucking minds, start talking about dropping KDE, going to FreeBSD and other silliness. Then for a few days these articles keep dropping, people keep getting upset.

    Meanwhile, what is the official KDE stance? Seems to be pretty reasonable to me. I don’t know if the media needs to be less clickbaity and not pick up any stupid proposal by a random person, or should the people reading the media do a little it of more digging than just reacting to the headline. Probably a bit of both. But this whole thing is getting seriously silly. At this point you cant really discuss AI in any meaningful manner, at least not on Lemmy, because of the knee jerk reactions and extreme opinions.

    Whats even more sad is that I feel like I need to add a disclaimer that I am not pro-AI, even though I don’t think I voiced an opinion on it, in the main part of my stupid rant. I feel like I need to add it, because if I don’t some people will just ignore what I’m saying and start going on at me about how AI bad and I should feel bad. Or something.

    Anyway, if you read all that, I’m sorry to have wasted your time.

    The Linux Experiment - No, KDE isn’t turning into an AI desktop: https://youtu.be/Pkgvc7jwxwU

  • Sunspear ( Sunspear@piefed.social ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    7 days ago

    My prime motivator for moving to KDE after my years on Gnome was the feeling of sleekness, of less bloat.

    Right now, using AI in any manner other than a rubber duck or search engine is kind of guaranteeing that you end up with a bloated mess.

    I hope they can find a sensible middle ground - I say middle, but I mean more of a 95% no AI, 5% feel free to use it as a SO alternative when searching for issues.

    • exdor ( exdor@programming.dev ) 
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 days ago

      Nicco explained why that person was banned before the fascist guy was. I think they should be unbanned quickly, so that is a big issue.

      But also, KDE basically allows any LLM use that is not traceable, which makes sense because everything else is unachievable. It is a compromise but they have a practical stance.

      • Sonnenblume ( e8d79@discuss.tchncs.de ) 
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        Nicco says a lot of things, especially when it comes to defending fascists. That wasn’t even the first time.

        Also, the idea that you can’t ban something just because a few people will get away with it is false. Literally all rules work that way. The average slop coder isn’t subtle about it and they will get banned if they try to pass of their extrusions as their own work. Contributors who stick around usually do because they care about that community. These contributors will then also respect that communities rules and values.

        • exdor ( exdor@programming.dev ) 
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 days ago

          Just no, he is openly antifascist but apparently doesnt wanna put people who dont have a clear stance and dont stand up against fascism into the same pot as fascists.

          I am sure Vaxry is childish and should say no to Omarchy funding. And Andreas Kling is pretty weird too.

          • That guy, antifascist? I never met an antifascist who keeps splitting hair on whether a guy, who calls for the ethnic cleansing of non-white people from the UK, and who compared Roma people to wolves, might be fascist. Andreas Kling literally boosts white replacement theory tweets. That goes way beyond weird in my book. Vaxry, maybe, I don’t know. He could be just an asshole, but being really nasty to trans people specifically is kinda a dog whistle in itself.

  • We can pretend AI isn’t being used or won’t be used by devs contributing to opensource projects, but that won’t change reality. You can “ban” AI in your projects but all that will do is lead to people who use AI to not say it openly. Those unable to understand the output of the AI will be caught, but those that do, won’t.

    IMO, it would be better to have a policy that says “It doesn’t matter whether you, your cousin, or AI wrote it, you must understand everything you submit to us.”

    • Of course you can ban AI use. Nobody says theft is pointless to ban just because some people will get away with it. The discussion also isn’t just on technical terms. The companies behind these models and the damage they are doing to the environment and our societies are a big reason for the dislike of this technology.

      • Theft isn’t banned, it’s illegal. Those are two different things. But those are semantics. AI companies are being sued for theft, the product they made from it isn’t illegal, the process of them making it is.

        It’s like chocolate: it is made by child labor, which is illegal, yet you and your friends or family love chocolate cake, pudding, or whatever product is made from chocolate. Do you think chocolate should be prohibited as a product because the majority of its sourcing comes from child labor? Or the phone you hold in your hands being made from resources gained through, you guessed it, child labor theft, corruption, and war instigation (aka organized murder), should phones as such be banned? The clothes you wear on your back are also probably made from labor that is underpaid, done in unsafe conditions, etc.

        There are many things I consider more despicable and worth fighting for, and that list may be different that yours. For whatever reason you’re dismissing what I just said, consider that somebody else has that same misgiving about your stance on AI and the arbitrary line in the sand you drew.

  • And the crazy part is nobody seems to have listened to the talk?

    Yes there was some ambiguity, but AI was always an additional tool, and the focus was

    1. Changing the desktop paradigm to solve tasks rather than work with files (nothing new)
    2. Stressing ethical, small and local models
    3. Protecting users that de facto already use agents and CLI tools with sandboxes and safeguards inside the OS, including automatic masking of personal data. This is really cool and important!

    Also dont forget that this was an idea to play around with, not “we want KDE to only be this now”

    • I did (and the talk has a very high view count on youtube). The guy is a good presenter, and seems aware of his audience, and I thought his ideas for the desktop were interesting, but everything he was saying and showing was entirely full of holes that could be poked into it, and is something that was, uh, unnecessary to present.