You turned around the argument, it was never about “has to use it”. What we are discussing is if everyone should be banned from using it.
You forgot blockchain, do you remember how blockchain was the future, and we were all going to be left behind if we didn’t cram blockchain into everything? 
There is an obvious double standard being expresed here.
If a technology is morally tainted by people or organizations that you have decided are objectionable, then apply that rule consistently. Microwave ovens came from military radar research. Duct tape was developed for war. GPS was developed and is still maintained by the U.S. military. Computing, rocketry (jet aviation,) and the Internet (ARPANET) all have deep military roots.
Yet nobody argues that using them endorses their origins.
The same inconsistency applies to Delta Chat. Its privacy can be used by criminals, child abusers, and people sharing all manner of ‘illegal’ material, but nobody claims that developing or using Delta Chat endorses those people.
So why does that distinction disappear with AI?
Either judge technologies by what they do and how they are used, or apply guilt by association consistently to everything. This moral hand-wringing and constant search for ‘fascists’ around every corner is exhausting.
If there are elements of AI or LLMs that are genuinely detrimental to the development of Delta Chat, then let’s discuss those.
The rest is selective moralizing, hypocrisy, and noise.
I absolutely hate how ai has infiltrated virtually every aspect of our online lives, I even run an anti-AI X account, but we still have to distinguish AI as a tool from ai as a broader social phenomenon, just as we do with the technologies listed above. Otherwise, to remain morally consistent, perhaps this discussion should be conducted by chain-letter snailmail or smoke signals.
What are you using instead?
But proprietary software is here to stay. It will not go away. Whoever tries to “solve” the problem by just banning it is not addressing the problem. Not even 1% of the users of an app will care if proprietary software was created in the app’s development. They want a great app and if they can not get it here, they will get it somewhere else.
Coding with the help of chat bots is still a form of programming, but on a higher level from a given point of view more akin to (but not equivalent to) natural languages and more importantly in a non-deterministic and less reliable way.
Hence the role of a software developer is here to stay indefinitely. Especially that of a great developer who will always be needed to clean up the mess created by incompetent tools and people. Note that this still requires a trained “prompt engineer” and lots of trial & error (and hopefully a developer background to ensure that the output is proper in the first place).
The real role for creating code at a natural language level is actually that of a product owner (product manager, project manager, architect, etc.) who guides a team of such prompt engineers and this role is also here to stay.
This moral hand-wringing and constant search for ‘fascists’ around every corner is exhausting.
Hi. Why did you put that word in quotes?
So why does that distinction disappear with AI?
Because it is significantly more harmful in multiple ways than those cherry picked examples, possibly with the exception of aviation, which should be avoided as much as possible!
But proprietary software is here to stay.
Yes. It also has no place in Delta Chat.
Especially that of a great developer who will always be needed to clean up the mess created by incompetent tools and people.
This is the most easily understood reason for banning LLMs. No one wants to do that, or should.
Not exactly nobody.
I have similar thoughts with the implications that USA military involvement in many techs i use, since i am from Indonesia, a country where so many USA influence, and capitalism, feel like obvious issue (and stronger for China and communism too, because many people died/accused at a failed communist/CIA rise September few decades ago at Indonesia).
so of course when i decide to be more active at an open source project, i will check who are the people involved
especially GPS and internet, because many applications are using the USA ones (satellites and websites), they are increasing USA positions
and we aren’t really talking only about origins of AI in this discussion.
AI is negative not only what happened (our global data are stolen), but because what is happening (oligarchy is increasing their power) and what will happen (if no one opposing this now, it will be harder for us to oppose the next hype…)
and that tante article is really chilling what it is, either it is about terraforming or “saving” the democracy:
i would be happy to always be introspective of “are we sure we are not just being stubborn and biased here” while having a conversation, but there is a limit on how self-defeating that direction is
There are 3 reasons you fail to see what is the problem here:
-
All the things you cherry-pick have deep roots in authoritarian-based mindset, a mix of capitalism, statism, nationalism. As such they are all proplematic. But they are not all directly operated by said authoritarian entities: the current internet is a mix of capitalisitic and community-based entities, allowing services that can be capitalistic or not, involving everyone. What’s important here is to understand is that the AI itself is a project. You keep separating the project from the tool because you absolutely want to use it but that is not how it works. You may split the tech and the project in your head, but the project never split it and will be there at every step, however comfortable you are with your willful ignorance. The domination and exploitation project is plainly obvious, it is the exact thing you’re doing when you’re using AI. You are the object being manipulated, not the software code. The llm doesn’t really matter as long as you depend on the company. Which is why it must be stopped. Moreover, as was noted in another answer, the GPS run by the US army or AI run by self-proclaimed fascists is completely different in scale: the first one helps the State dominate, the second one wants to be the State and implement its own policies. My microwave vendor doesn’t sell microwave in an attempt to overthrow democracy.
-
AI is new. It is not even five years old. All the tech you cited has existed for decades, some even a century ago. They are deeply embedded in our current world, and this is exactly what AI fascists want: embedding it as deeply as possible, while it’s still possible, so that everything depends on it. The primary target is capitalistic processes, because those will always be cherished, so whatever is needed to maintain them will be done, which is why they are forcefed at vomitting rate inside the mouths of companies and their employees. But no one is spared, because all production of anything must be tainted with this and the AI middleman needs to be inserted everywhere so it can mediate production. Art, code, processes, discussion, everything is being colonized as fast as possible. Which is why we need to say no, not “yes under conditions” (because fascists don’t respect conditions and enlightened centrism will gradually accept more and more, never less and less)
-
If you actually looked into serious arguments against AI you would see a pattern amongst all targets: all capitalistic projects are problematic and must be stopped, because capitalism is incompatible with a sustained environment, with respecting people equally and providing the best life for everyone. There is no inconsistency here, only your ignorance of the topic.
I absolutely hate how ai has infiltrated virtually every aspect of our online lives, I even run an anti-AI X account, but we still have to distinguish AI as a tool from ai as a broader social phenomenon,
For anyone reading along it is crucial to know that AI entryism is fully at work now. People who will pretend to be anti-AI, concerned about it, and yet do what they can to still run a little bit of it with various arguments. That is of course not an anti-AI position (which for consistency would presume not even using X), just deception. The playbook of fascism hasn’t changed.
Otherwise, to remain morally consistent, perhaps this discussion should be conducted by chain-letter snailmail or smoke signals.
Literally yet you participate in society. That line of argument should have died of uselesness years ago yet we are still here somehow.
AI boosters really have no rational arguments eh
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I actually appreciate that you, unlike many here, are trying to apply the principle consistently, including to technologies and institutions you already use.
I think that also highlights the difficulty I was getting at, though. Once moral acceptability depends on tracing every technology through its funders, governments, corporations, political systems, supply chains, and users, we end up needing a moral and geopolitical audit of virtually the entire technological stack. And even then, the result depends heavily on who designates themselves as the final authority on which governments, ideologies, companies, and people are sufficiently objectionable to taint the technology. In the end, virtually every technology becomes morally contaminated somewhere in the chain, depending on whose worldview is being used to judge it.
I don’t look at tools that way. A hammer is still a hammer even if it was invented by someone I despise or has been used to kill someone. I judge the tool by what it is and what I am doing with it.
That is the distinction I am suggesting be used with AI as well.
I’m not going to engage further with disingenuous comments presented as discussion.
If you disagree, you are ignorant.
If you say you oppose aspects of AI, you are deceptive.
If you use AI while criticizing it, that proves ‘entryism.’
If you defend tool/use separation, that is part of fascism.
Not everyone shares your Marxist analysis of capitalism, technology, and society, and disagreement with that worldview is not evidence of ignorance, deception, or fascism.
I’m happy to disagree. I’m not interested in a discussion where disagreement itself is treated as proof of moral failure. I’ll leave it at that with you.
that’s fine position you have, but as rako pointed above, there is also another position that can be opposite of what you are making
here is the thing though, we want the best for DeltaChat, and usually that means to make it posssible for everyone to join. While that doesn’t mean requiring everyone to use AI, the fact that some of us will use AI, will going to be a dealbreaker for someone actually opposing AI
how do we reconcile this?
my suggestion is to ban AI in DeltaChat, at least in the protocols, the core rust code/libraries, and the default applications, because if somebody want to use AI, they can just do it outside the perimeters (and we already have some clients exactly that)
especially if we let in the AI, there will be power imbalance with the one not using AI
even this suggestion i make, i feel like can still be used for embrace, extend, extinguish DeltaChat, but i would like it over the anti AI people doing fork/abandon of DeltaChat (and we already have some alternative and moving away being suggested)
my principle arriving to this suggestion is to have someone suggesting certain tools (AI) to be used, to be the ones doing the extra works (stay away from the core), while actively aware the argument “using AI can be so much more easier” doesn’t account for all the costs of everyone involved (including why then not just one person doing everything by AI, and joining the oligarchy with so much more money but less people involved - i know because there are a lot of pizzas and drinks, but it does feel like trading short term for our long term survival - and i still appreciate the people that need money to survive even that means working for big tech, i myself included)
that’s include me by the way, as i am one of city lead of buildclub.ai Indonesia, but i wish DeltaChat be the one of the places can still be developed and used without AI, because i do need hope we can still work together without AI being necessary
i miss the humanity
I think this is where we may actually have a workable distinction.
I would strongly support keeping AI out of Delta Chat itself: no AI dependency in the protocol, core libraries, default clients, or normal operation of the software.
But I would equally oppose telling developers what tools they may use privately to write, debug, understand, or test code. If someone uses an LLM to help solve a Rust problem and the resulting code is reviewed, auditable, maintainable, and meets the project’s standards, I don’t think that makes Delta Chat an AI product.
For me, the boundary should be the software and project requirements, not the private working methods or moral framework of individual contributors. People are always going to differ fundamentally on questions of morality and technology. I don’t think participation in Delta Chat should require everyone to arrive at the same political or moral conclusions before they can contribute.
I agree: Delta Chat can remain fully usable and developable without AI, while still allowing people with very different worldviews and working methods to contribute to the same project.
“I miss the humanity.” Amen!
and for what it worth, pointing out entrysm may feel like an attack, but i am thankful of it because i need it as reminder of how i myself can be corrupted to do the wrong things
disagreement with [Marxist analysis] worldview is not evidence of ignorance, deception, or fascism.
You’re right, it’s evidence of a capitalistic point of view
disagreement itself is treated as proof of moral failure
Marxist analysis is specifically against a moral analysis, everything instead must be grounded in sociology science (how societies work, influence thinking, define boundaries, etc), because morality is an abstract, vaporous topic. You are making it a moral issue instead, something individuals can sort out on their own outside of the influence of their environment. That is your contribution to the discussion.
i think we still need to be careful on this, as we have seen how defensive GrapheneOS can be when people pointing out their contractors use AI when modernizing the Camera app
it is easy to say that “meet the project’s standards” will be the qualifier for that, but in practices, that means the humans authoring the code, docs, discussions, and decisions will often fallback to “it is because AI told me so”, kind of “cognitive surrender”
so… anti AI position is still be the best for DeltaChat
falling that, at least requiring the disclosure of AI usage, so the anti AI people can just work in cleaner way, like avoiding the AI parts
and silently using AI without AI usage disclosure, will lead to so much extra work for anti AI people, even any gossip about DeltaChat being AI pilled has made the alternative projects being discussed
Very timely and relevant: LLM Policies: Progress At All Costs
The communities that choose to stay in control of their software and care about people outside of their tiny little sphere are the communities I wish to support.
I believe that the proAI/antiAI from the point of view of users and developers are widely discussed.
But I want to consider the problem from a strategical point of view.
There are basically three potential positions:
- Accepting LLMs as tools (with safeguards or not).
- Choosing not to do anything for now except some minor guidelines (formally Debian and the current position of DC), aka the “middle ground”
- Rejecting LLMs strongly (with potential exceptions that have major safeguards)
What we could learn from Debian is that, basically, nobody is really happy with that. Also, it looks like it is not a sustainable position. Projects telling 2) will gradually slips towards 1) through contributions made by LLMs. The longer they wait, the more ineluctable 1) is.
Which means that a strong choice is probably required. 1 or 3.
Both choices will alienate some part of the community and some key contributor. That’s sad but a small niche project cannot please everyone.
Now that I made this point, we way argue whether 1 or 3 is better from a philosophical, ethical or pragmatic point of view.
But, from a strategical point of view, what will be the effects on the project:
PRO-AI
PRO. contributors can use LLMs which may be more productive in the short term (while every studies so far tends to point the opposite)
CON: alienate part of the community with is mostly anti-AI and look for ethical software
ANTIAI:
PRO:
- strong support from the “ethical” part of the community
- potential better long term maintenance (not depending on proprietary stuff)
CONS:
- Alienate some contributors that really want to use AI
When you think about it, contributors that are completely turned away by the fact they can’t use LLMs are probably contributors you don’t want in your project, even if you have position 2) “moderate use of AI” like Debian. People that don’t want to contribute without LLMs would not be able to humanly review and understand the code anyway.
Also, Delta Chat is a very niche project currently appealing to open source/decentralized/privacy minded people. Those people usually have a very strong ethical sense. They are very vocal about supporting “projects not using any AI”. They may be a very small minority of the world but in the DC niche, they are very influent. By appealing to those people, Delta Chat, with all its other qualities, could become a major player and the one those people highly recommend (for example, Simplex was at some point quite popular with strong privacy minded people but is now replaced due to suspicion of its creators being fascists).
In conclusion, I would say that Delta Chat has all to gain from adopting an anti-AI stance and nothing to really lose. Cherry on cake: being anti-AI is a policy that can be changed later if we realize the world evolves toward ethical and reliable LLMs (try to read this sentence again but without laughing).
While the opposite is false: once you have have slop in your codebase, it will be very hard to remove. Cory Doctorow compares it to asbestos.
EDIT: did a cleaner version on my blog The AI Pascal’s Wager
@r10s Could you please clarify what you mean by “human authored”? Commits can be “authored” by a person but include LLM code. I strongly hope you mean human written.
Thanks for calling out Debian specifically! I found it very telling that they voted for a policy that doesn’t even require disclosure of chatbot usage. It’s almost as if they don’t want to know how much of their codebase is potentially uncopyrightable.