GNOME and KDE have started to consider LLM policies, and we should talk about what this is really about.
KDE caught everyone's attention first by igniting a flame war with an LLM-friendly draft that ended up being deleted, causing a few bans, and having a bunch of people go full "Some of you may die, but that is a sacrifice I am willing to make". GNOME has not proposed anything official, but some teams (gnome-calendar, loupe, libadwaita, gnome-software, Circle, among others) already have strong policies in place, and there is now an informal draft to ban all LLM contributions to GNOME projects and infrastructure.
However I believe these discussions are not about nitpicking workflows but rather about the raison d'être, the reason to be, of FLOSS projects.
My take is that there are currently two ways of thinking about why FLOSS exists, or should exist. So far, both sides have coexisted but the growing acceptance of LLMs into some developer workflows has disrupted the balance.
We can call one of these sides "collectivism". This frames FLOSS to be about accomplishing things together, enjoying the journey and bonds that big goals tend to create. The fun is the collective effort and challenge. Overcoming language and social barriers is part of the reward. "The journey is the destination", "FLOSS is the friends we made along the way", etc.
On the other side there is "completionism", where FLOSS is "just a product" and its only goal is to always be better, faster, safer. Any fun to be had is in individually solving technical problems and requirements. Social bonds may happen, but colleagues are more coworkers than community. This is a "100% allglitches alltricks" TAS speedrun. The "we are apolitical", "we only care about the code" view.
My assessment is that the collectivist framing finds FLOSS primarily a social exercise that rewards you with experiences, bonds, and ideas outside of your niche interests. Some times you even get good software as a bonus! The second framing sees FLOSS as a tool to scale the complexity of your individual computer interest, like graphics or security. FLOSS is a convenience compared to manually rebasing patches and forks all the time.
The problem we are facing is that LLMs have given the second group a lever to stop giving the collectivist framing any room. When the LLM can get you 80% of the way to your goal, there is no need to "waste" time in mentoring, discussion, or convincing others. The temptation compounds if you are considered an expert in your field. You can surely fill in the last 20%, right? Is anyone going to challenge not only the machine, but also the expert?
Since LLMs present themselves as neutral, and dispassionate, opposition to their output becomes opposition to objective progress: bug fixes, security hypotheticals, features. Progress is whatever the LLM, under my own careful eyes, says it is. Interactions with others become formalities, since the LLM is simply boosting my own, already expert and close to infallible, output. Right?
Unfortunately this "expert slop", where expert is a self-perceived title, carries a corporate framing that damages interactions. Others become, at best, fungible coworkers, and, at worst, annoying speed bumps in the race to 100% completion of any software interest the expert has. No more mentoring, debating, flame wars. "Progress" is the only goal. The line must go up.
There is more to say about how this machiavellian framing causes far more important harms and externalities, in the name of LLMs themselves, or apparent LLM-assisted progress. Think of any group and you will find out they have been handed part of the bill for these externalities:
These are the real costs in the "Progress At All Costs" that LLMs bring into FLOSS. These are the people who will pay the bill, behind the scenes and far from our screens, so that some big brain engineers can avoid reading documentation, writing boilerplate, learning unfamiliar code, or, worse, working with others.
Almost ten years ago Allan Day described GNOME as Principled Software because of its commitment to always doing the right thing, in code or design, because it was the right thing and not because of ease, pressure, or hype. I believe this is why so many other FLOSS projects have always looked at GNOME for guidance on what good FLOSS should be. This discussion is just another opportunity to continue to meet this expectation.
Recent discussions have shared similar sentiments like reminding us that we do book clubs because we want to read and enjoy books, not to just discuss over summaries because it is "more productive". That when pressed to accelerate FLOSS, to make the line go up, we have to ask for whom do we want to be more productive, efficient, faster?. And that every decision is political and affect other people around you.
We already know that LLM productivity is not real, just a self perception, that LLMs are just a fairy tale to maintain tech stocks hypergrowth, by farming engineers for engagement, and the latest in a series of attacks to commoditize tech workers. Knowing all this, are we still going to play along with big tech's lies and exploitation? Or, are we going to make another principled stand?
GNOME did not need LLMs to produce 30 years of creative engineering, design, localization, inclusion, and collaboration that has been shared with people around the world. It does not need to throw away this incredible legacy simply because LLMs happen to farm our worst individualist impulses.
We came this far without compromising our principles, let's not start now.