The GNOME LLM Policy That I Want

我所期待的 GNOME 大语言模型（LLM）政策

KDE is on the news because of a controversial proposal to define an official “AI” (LLM) policy (archived link). Other projects have tried their hand at similar policies and stances but, in my opinion, they miss the mark about the goal of such initiatives. I think that the point of these statements is shaping social norms and not micro-managing developer workflows. They should be about signalling what kind of behavior we want, and what kind we reject. KDE 最近因一项关于定义官方“人工智能”（大语言模型）政策的争议性提案而登上新闻（存档链接）。其他项目也曾尝试制定类似的政策和立场，但在我看来，它们偏离了此类倡议的目标。我认为，这些声明的意义在于塑造社会规范，而非对开发者的工作流程进行微观管理。它们应当旨在表明我们所推崇的行为，以及我们所拒绝的行为。

This proposal does not go into detail about the many problems that LLM have caused to society, workers, the environment. It goes without saying that all these ills are fundamentally opposed to the humanist spirit of GNOME. With all that in mind, here is what I personally think a GNOME LLM policy could be: 该提案并未详细阐述大语言模型对社会、劳动者和环境造成的诸多问题。毋庸置疑，所有这些弊端都从根本上违背了 GNOME 的人文精神。考虑到这一点，以下是我个人认为 GNOME 大语言模型政策应有的样子：

A GNOME Project LLM Policy

GNOME 项目大语言模型政策

The GNOME Project prioritizes the social and human aspects of collective software creation. Therefore: GNOME 项目优先考虑集体软件创作中的社会和人文层面。因此：

LLMs (“AI”) can not be used to create or modify anything submitted to GNOME, or hosted on GNOME infrastructure. You might be asked to prove your code meets this requirement. You might be banned for trying to circumvent this policy.
不得使用大语言模型（“人工智能”）来创建或修改任何提交给 GNOME 或托管在 GNOME 基础设施上的内容。你可能会被要求证明你的代码符合此要求。若试图规避此政策，你可能会被封禁。

Example Guidelines for Contributors

贡献者准则示例

These are just a draft of the kind of criteria one could use to evaluate if a submission fits the policy. 这只是评估提交内容是否符合该政策时可以参考的准则草案。

You must be able to personally reason and explain your changes
你必须能够亲自阐述并解释你的修改
You must be able to demonstrate knowledge of the problem space you are working on
你必须能够展示你对所处理问题领域的了解
You must solve the underlying issue, not just its symptoms
你必须解决根本问题，而不仅仅是其表象
You must respect the time of fellow contributors
你必须尊重其他贡献者的时间
You must not impersonate yourself through chatbots, agents, or other automated systems
你不得通过聊天机器人、代理或其他自动化系统冒充自己

This Is About The Future Of GNOME

这关乎 GNOME 的未来

GNOME is not just software that happens to ship every six months. That is just a delusion we have been holding up for the last 30 years to keep our loose group of colleagues, friends, and acquaintances, together. GNOME exists as a collective that find joy in reaching beyond our individual limitations to achieve something bigger. These people, this joy, are the whole point of the project. GNOME 不仅仅是每六个月发布一次的软件。那只是我们过去 30 年来为了将我们这个松散的同事、朋友和熟人团体凝聚在一起而维持的一种错觉。GNOME 作为一个集体存在，我们在超越个人局限、实现更宏大目标的过程中寻找乐趣。这些人，这份快乐，才是该项目的全部意义所在。

Contributors are not payroll, a liability, that we hope to downsize next quarter. “Come do free labor for a handful of corporations by reviewing chatbot output in your free time” is not an attractive proposition to young talented people in 2026. If we want GNOME to continue we need to create an attractive and inviting social space where people are valued as people. 贡献者不是工资单上的负担，也不是我们希望在下个季度裁减的负债。“在业余时间通过审查聊天机器人的输出来为少数几家公司做免费劳动力”，这对 2026 年的年轻人才来说并不是一个有吸引力的提议。如果我们希望 GNOME 继续存在，我们需要创造一个具有吸引力和包容性的社交空间，让人们作为“人”被重视。

Just like the Foundation is moving to individual donations to stop depending on just a handful of companies, we need to look for the next 100 people that will donate a tiny bit of their time, instead of hoping that corporations will keep 10 overworked engineers on staff. We already have seen how companies will happily abandon a whole chunk of GNOME on a whim. GNOME is not just software, and it should protect the social and human aspects that make it special. Our success metric is the community and social bonds we create. In the most literal sense GNOME is about the journey and the friends we make along the way. Free Palestine. 就像基金会正转向个人捐赠以摆脱对少数几家公司的依赖一样，我们需要寻找下一批愿意贡献一点点时间的 100 个人，而不是寄希望于企业能保留 10 名过度劳累的工程师。我们已经看到企业如何随心所欲地抛弃 GNOME 的一部分。GNOME 不仅仅是软件，它应该保护使其变得特别的社会和人文层面。我们的成功指标是我们创造的社区和社会纽带。从最字面的意义上讲，GNOME 关乎的是旅程以及我们在途中结识的朋友。解放巴勒斯坦。

FAQ

常见问题解答

How do you enforce this? 你如何执行这一点？

You can not. People will still send LLM generated code. This policy makes it explicit that we do not welcome these careless submissions. We have a Code of Conduct that is 80% about telling other people what our values are, and 20% about handling unwanted behavior (“enforcing”). This is similar. 你无法执行。人们仍然会发送大语言模型生成的代码。此政策明确表示我们不欢迎这些草率的提交。我们有一份行为准则，其中 80% 是为了告诉他人我们的价值观，20% 是为了处理不受欢迎的行为（“执行”）。这与之类似。

What if people simply lie about not using LLMs? 如果人们只是撒谎说没有使用大语言模型怎么办？

This is the same problem as authorship, in the copyright sense. Whenever we receive new code we have to assume that “beyond a reasonable doubt” said code has been authored by the person contributing it. We make our best guess. The attached guidelines are a suggestion to make these new guesses. 这与版权意义上的作者身份问题相同。每当我们收到新代码时，我们必须假设“在合理怀疑之外”，该代码是由贡献者本人编写的。我们尽最大努力进行判断。所附准则旨在为这些判断提供建议。

Ok. But what if people are really good at lying? 好吧。但如果人们非常擅长撒谎呢？

This policy is about the majority that will not even try to lie. See previous questions. 这项政策针对的是那些甚至不会尝试撒谎的大多数人。请参阅前面的问题。