OpenAI has hired three former Patreon execs to anchor its product strategy for creators. After starting the creator subscription platform 13 years ago, co-founder and technology chief Sam Yam announced on X that he's joining OpenAI to lead Creator Product. He's also bringing Patreon's former product head Drew Rowny and engineering head Shannon Ma with him on the new venture, both of whom stepped down in the past few weeks.

"We're going to build together with Creators at OpenAI and share early access to a new set of tools that I think will be critically valuable to Creators and their communities," Yam said in his announcement. "Pay attention …

Read the full story at The Verge.

KDE is on the news because of a controversial proposal to define an official “AI” (LLM) policy. 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.

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:

A GNOME Project LLM Policy

The GNOME Project prioritizes the social and human aspects of
collective software creation. Therefore:

1. LLMs ("AI") can not be used to create or modify
code 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.

Example Guidelines for Contributors

These are just a draft of the kind of criteria one could use to evaluate if a submission fits the policy.

• You must be able to personally reason and explain your changes
• You must be able to demonstrate knowledge of the problem space you are working on
• You must solve the underlying issue, not just its symptoms
• You must respect the time of fellow contributors
• You must not impersonate yourself through chatbots, agents, or other automated systems

This Is About The Future Of GNOME

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. 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.

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.

FAQ

How do you enforce this?

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.

What if people simply lie about not using LLMs?

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.

Ok. But what if people are really good at lying?

This policy is about the majority that will not even try to lie. See previous questions.

Executives working on AI at Microsoft and OpenAI admitted what its critics have been saying all along: Large language models are predatory pieces of technology that have been built on what a Microsoft executive called “an astonishing theft of unprecedented proportions,” and the “largest theft of labor in human history.” An internal Microsoft document said generative AI products have created a “doom loop” that is killing “the entire web.” 

Those statements and a series of other mask-off moments feature heavily in an unredacted court filing that was unsealed Thursday in the behemoth New York Times vs OpenAI copyright lawsuit that has been winding its way through the court system for years. In a filing asking for summary judgment (basically, a filing with the court asking it to rule), lawyers for the New York Times laid out a series of admissions made by Microsoft and OpenAI executives in documents and depositions that until now had remained either sealed or redacted at the request of Microsoft and OpenAI. 

It’s easy to see why the AI companies wanted to hide this from the public. The statements, taken together, are some of the most damning indictments of the ways LLMs were trained, how they worked, and the immediate threat they pose to human labor. It is a reminder that even as AI becomes more powerful and companies try to shift the narrative to the supposed existential risk of “superintelligent” AI, the tools they have already built were created by stealing from human creativity and labor and are by definition existential threats to the human labor market.

“Millions of people around the world will soon consider large models ‘hoovering up’ all their work to be an astonishing theft of unprecedented proportions,” an internal Microsoft document cited in the case read, adding “almost no one intended for content they created to be used in this fashion, nor are they compensated for its use.”

The filing was written by lawyers for the New York Times but is largely comprised of statements and interviews with big tech executives that admit both that LLMs are largely trained on stolen content, that they represent an existential risk for the human writers, artists, and media companies that they stole from, and that their products have started a “doom loop” that is eating the web and destroying the businesses that these companies stole from. 

The unredacted filing was found by Jason Kint, the CEO of Digital Content Next, a trade organization that represents digital media companies. Kint has been closely following and posting about massive AI copyright lawsuits.

The court filing cites an internal Microsoft document that found that AI products steal from human content creators, then cannibalize clicks from the people and websites they’ve stolen from, thereby destroying their business models. 

“Our AI content strategy has started a ‘doom loop’ that will hurt the performance of our models and the entire web at the same time: It is highly unusual that an end-product threatens the economic foundations of its essential suppliers, but that is the situation we have created for our LLM business with respect to its ‘content supply chain,’” the document said. 

Microsoft executives, including CEO Satya Nadella, testified under oath that after ripping content from the New York Times and other news sites, clicks to those news sites fully cratered, falling by more than 90 percent on Bing. 

Documents obtained during the court proceedings found that OpenAI created “a hack to get around nytimes paywall,” to which OpenAI cofounder Greg Brockman said “ah, nice.” Microsoft executive Brent Hecht wrote that LLMs steal content “without ways of distributing economic value down the supply chain, [which] necessarily threatens the economic stability of those who create the content.” 

OpenAI’s policy director Jack Clark wrote that the company was “creating systems that substitute for the labor of the people that define the ‘culture’ of society” and Microsoft, in a policy document, wrote that generative AI could “significantly disrupt the employment of the very people who generated the data on which the foundation model was trained […] LLMs are a product that destroys its supply chain.” OpenAI called itself an “existential threat” to news publishers, and an OpenAI software engineer testified that “no matter how prominently we show the links, users won’t click.” 

None of this is at all surprising to anyone who has been paying attention to the development of generative artificial intelligence, but the document, taken in whole, is a real they-admit-it situation. OpenAI’s and Microsoft’s lawyers have been trying to argue that their model training is fair use and transformative under copyright law and that they are building something that is fundamentally different from the human labor that it was trained on. But internally, these executives know that what they have built has been built on stolen content and that the products they’ve made are cannibalizing the sources they’ve stolen from and destroying the internet as we know it.