TDF employs good reasoning and applies high standards that other open-source projects should emulate. I’d recommend reading the full article but I particularly liked

No telemetry of any kind. LibreOffice does not collect usage data, and this must also apply to AI features.

And (emphasis mine)

It must be installable , removable, and absent from the user interface for those who do not wish to use it, including administrators deploying the software across thousands of workstations

I don’t think shots were intended to be fired at the Mozilla corporation, who can’t stop talking about their default, opt-out AI, but it paints a stark picture of the difference between a company that preaches privacy and choice, versus a company that actually provides those things.

  • WaterWaiver@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    15 hours ago

    I don’t think shots were intended to be fired at the Mozilla corporation, who can’t stop talking about their default, opt-out AI, but it paints a stark picture of the difference between a company that preaches privacy and choice, versus a company that actually provides those things.

    I think they’re also taking shots on telemetry. Firefox uses telemetry as evidence to support their decisions in ways that sometimes seem contrived or statistically incorrect (similar to only x% of people turned this default feature off, therefore it is good), making me feel as a user that contributing my telemetry to them is actually a bad thing that is encouraging their behaviour. Meanwhile TDF makes great software that follows what the community wants and needs without any telemetry collection.

  • kbal@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    21 hours ago

    You’d think that “no AI” would be an easy feature to implement, and it’s much in demand. Strange that it seems to be beyond the abilities of so many software developers.

    • luciole (he/him)@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 hours ago

      It’s more a question of agency than ability. Take this excerpt from the announcement:

      For a company that sells subscriptions, an AI assistant justifies a price increase and strengthens the case for keeping all documents within its own infrastructure. The functionality and the business model reinforce each other, so integration is not only attractive but almost mandatory.

      Anyone employed in such a company will have a hard time resisting. There’s a mix of unrest and despair in the discipline right now. I’ve met colleagues drastically change careers over this. Sick leaves over mental health too.

    • TehPers@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      20 hours ago

      It’s mostly just management dictating from the top-down. I’ve heard everything from “it’s our company’s direction” to “investors are only funding AI expenses” and nothing actually grounded on (B2C) customer feedback.

      • stravanasu@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        18 hours ago

        With the important reminder that top-management people typically have the IQ of a beetle, or less.

    • Ooops@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      15 hours ago

      You would be surprised how much “We need AI to take over the world completely or there is no chance in hell to ever get our insane investments back” motivates people to push bullshit on you.