6 ms·

Conversely, a no-AI ethos is one that will very likely need to be walked back at some point in the future for tech products. AI isn't going anywhere, so finding

Conversely, a no-AI ethos is one that will very likely need to be walked back at some point in the future for tech products. AI isn't going anywhere, so finding ways to use it constructively with your product is going to be a far better long term strategy. For now while it's new and scary and there's a lack of regulation and governance and ethical considerations - I can see why an anti-AI stance is popular, but it's not durable long term.

angiolillo 27d ago
> finding ways to use it constructively with your product is going to be a far better long term strategy It's worth pointing out that the original Document Foundation blog post (https://blog.documentfoundation.org/blog/2026/09/03/yes-no-ai-is-now-a-feature/ https://blog.documentfoundation.org/blog/2026/09/03/yes-no-a...) seems to be doing exactly this: > The criteria we have listed do not amount to a definitive rejection. The AI sector is evolving rapidly; on-premises inference is becoming manageable on standard hardware; and open models are improving much faster than most of us had anticipated. Should an approach emerge that meets all the conditions, we will evaluate it very carefully.
- wat10000 27d ago
  That list seems pretty easy to meet today. I’m not sure why they’re waiting for an approach to emerge instead of building it now, unless there’s something else they haven’t listed.
  - kailpa1 27d ago
    What features do you think meet the list right now?
    - wat10000 27d ago
      I'm not sure where the supposed difficulty lies. "User-controlled execution." Seems easy enough to add settings so this is configurable. "No content may leave the computer without authorisation." OK, so don't do that. "No telemetry of any kind." There are plentiful API providers with zero data retention. If this means no data of any kind, even just records of having accessed the API, then local inference is a thing. "No dependence on a single provider." Trivial. The OpenAI API is a de facto standard implemented by tons of providers. If you really want to go broad, it's easy to implement clients for other APIs too. "No compromises on format." I don't even understand how this would be a problem in the first place. Text goes in, text comes out. The client can put it into whatever format it wants. "Entirely optional." Trivial to add an off switch. Or an on switch, so it's off by default. If it must be completely removable and not just turned off, it can be implemented as an extension.
bayindirh 27d ago
I'm a big supporter of LibreOffice, Codeberg, SourceHut, etc. on what they do, tell and defend, and I'm with them. On the other hand, I'm not anti-AI, but I don't want it to be shoved down my throat in any and every app I have. I don't want that sparkly "Enhance this slide" button, "WhatsApp AI" in the corner, automatically generated "AI summary" in Google/YouTube, etc. However, I'm fine with an unobtrusive "Summary" button in my search results (Kagi), or a tab which I can use with some models (Notion), "use ML" checkbox while resizing or "enhancing" images (Pixelmator Pro), or many small touches Apple enables with on-device models which doesn't have AI written all over it. In short, I want consent, control and dignity in my workflows. Yes, I'm very against how these LLMs are trained, built and how the datacenters they run on harm the environment we live in. However, I'm not against the tech. I want responsible development of it, for the customer instead of their owners which wants to milk their users like content and cash cows.
- r053bud 27d ago
  I really appreciate this comment since it very effectively communicates how I feel about the subject, since I have been struggling with putting it into such clear language.
  - bayindirh 27d ago
    Thank you very much.
mycocola 27d ago
I don't think there's enough information accurately assess this. Anti-AI movements might grow much larger than today, given AIs potential to replace jobs faster than we have the ability to create them. The movement could even result in AI going somewhere.
devsda 27d ago
> is one that will very likely need to be walked back at some point in the future for tech products No doubt, but that future is when companies have figured out proper fit for AI in their product context and preferably with local AI models. It should not be with the current slap AI anywhere and everywhere approach that uploads and trains on all available user data, which is what everyone is opposed to.
deleted 27d ago
[deleted]
globular-toast 27d ago
Nobody should be "finding ways to use" any technology. We should be solving problems first and foremost.
crote 27d ago
The internet has been around for quite a while now, and is absolutely critical for a lot of applications. Most people would never give up the internet. Yet there are still many applications without explicit mandatory internet tie-ins like cloud sync. In fact, "stores data locally" and "won't disappear with zero notice" are valuable features to many people! Just because AI is a no-brainer must-have for some apps doesn't mean it is a required feature for all apps - let alone one shoved in your face every few minutes.
- mmooss 27d ago
  > valuable features to many people! Which products that sell this are broadly popular? I can see some people on HN wanting it, but people I know who are outside that bubble don't even think of it as an issue.
- Jordan-117 27d ago
  I feel like the equivalent for the rise of the internet would be an explicitly anti-internet stance -- no website, no downloads, no online customer support, everything routed through snail mail, fax, and telephone (but no VoIP!) as an intentional ideological point.
juvvel 27d ago
I hate products that want me to find a use-case for their feature that they wanted to develop. It's great that some people love AI features, but for me, they are rarely solving an actual problem I have. But now I have to relearn the software because the company wants to go all-in on AI? Why should I? One example of that is Notion. I've loved it for years, and I'm still using it, but it's starting to lean heavier and heavier into an AI-first workflow and I don't like it to the point where I consider switching to something else regularly.

angiolillo 27d ago

> finding ways to use it constructively with your product is going to be a far better long term strategy It's worth pointing out that the original Document Foundation blog post (https://blog.documentfoundation.org/blog/2026/09/03/yes-no-ai-is-now-a-feature/ https://blog.documentfoundation.org/blog/2026/09/03/yes-no-a...) seems to be doing exactly this: > The criteria we have listed do not amount to a definitive rejection. The AI sector is evolving rapidly; on-premises inference is becoming manageable on standard hardware; and open models are improving much faster than most of us had anticipated. Should an approach emerge that meets all the conditions, we will evaluate it very carefully.

wat10000 27d ago
That list seems pretty easy to meet today. I’m not sure why they’re waiting for an approach to emerge instead of building it now, unless there’s something else they haven’t listed.
- kailpa1 27d ago
  What features do you think meet the list right now?
  - wat10000 27d ago
    I'm not sure where the supposed difficulty lies. "User-controlled execution." Seems easy enough to add settings so this is configurable. "No content may leave the computer without authorisation." OK, so don't do that. "No telemetry of any kind." There are plentiful API providers with zero data retention. If this means no data of any kind, even just records of having accessed the API, then local inference is a thing. "No dependence on a single provider." Trivial. The OpenAI API is a de facto standard implemented by tons of providers. If you really want to go broad, it's easy to implement clients for other APIs too. "No compromises on format." I don't even understand how this would be a problem in the first place. Text goes in, text comes out. The client can put it into whatever format it wants. "Entirely optional." Trivial to add an off switch. Or an on switch, so it's off by default. If it must be completely removable and not just turned off, it can be implemented as an extension.

bayindirh 27d ago

I'm a big supporter of LibreOffice, Codeberg, SourceHut, etc. on what they do, tell and defend, and I'm with them. On the other hand, I'm not anti-AI, but I don't want it to be shoved down my throat in any and every app I have. I don't want that sparkly "Enhance this slide" button, "WhatsApp AI" in the corner, automatically generated "AI summary" in Google/YouTube, etc. However, I'm fine with an unobtrusive "Summary" button in my search results (Kagi), or a tab which I can use with some models (Notion), "use ML" checkbox while resizing or "enhancing" images (Pixelmator Pro), or many small touches Apple enables with on-device models which doesn't have AI written all over it. In short, I want consent, control and dignity in my workflows. Yes, I'm very against how these LLMs are trained, built and how the datacenters they run on harm the environment we live in. However, I'm not against the tech. I want responsible development of it, for the customer instead of their owners which wants to milk their users like content and cash cows.

r053bud 27d ago
I really appreciate this comment since it very effectively communicates how I feel about the subject, since I have been struggling with putting it into such clear language.
- bayindirh 27d ago
  Thank you very much.

mycocola 27d ago

I don't think there's enough information accurately assess this. Anti-AI movements might grow much larger than today, given AIs potential to replace jobs faster than we have the ability to create them. The movement could even result in AI going somewhere.

devsda 27d ago

> is one that will very likely need to be walked back at some point in the future for tech products No doubt, but that future is when companies have figured out proper fit for AI in their product context and preferably with local AI models. It should not be with the current slap AI anywhere and everywhere approach that uploads and trains on all available user data, which is what everyone is opposed to.

deleted 27d ago

[deleted]

globular-toast 27d ago

Nobody should be "finding ways to use" any technology. We should be solving problems first and foremost.

crote 27d ago

The internet has been around for quite a while now, and is absolutely critical for a lot of applications. Most people would never give up the internet. Yet there are still many applications without explicit mandatory internet tie-ins like cloud sync. In fact, "stores data locally" and "won't disappear with zero notice" are valuable features to many people! Just because AI is a no-brainer must-have for some apps doesn't mean it is a required feature for all apps - let alone one shoved in your face every few minutes.

mmooss 27d ago
> valuable features to many people! Which products that sell this are broadly popular? I can see some people on HN wanting it, but people I know who are outside that bubble don't even think of it as an issue.
Jordan-117 27d ago
I feel like the equivalent for the rise of the internet would be an explicitly anti-internet stance -- no website, no downloads, no online customer support, everything routed through snail mail, fax, and telephone (but no VoIP!) as an intentional ideological point.

juvvel 27d ago

I hate products that want me to find a use-case for their feature that they wanted to develop. It's great that some people love AI features, but for me, they are rarely solving an actual problem I have. But now I have to relearn the software because the company wants to go all-in on AI? Why should I? One example of that is Notion. I've loved it for years, and I'm still using it, but it's starting to lean heavier and heavier into an AI-first workflow and I don't like it to the point where I consider switching to something else regularly.