https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=170092
--- Comment #3 from Eyal Rozenberg <[email protected]> --- (In reply to V Stuart Foote from comment #1) > IMHO a simple => WF My bottom line is similar, but not that simple, and not because of the availability of extensions. (In reply to Siarhei Kuchuk from comment #0) > Currently AI changes approach to document creation. Not really. Or rather, you can generate generic document text using LLMs, but that is the kind of document we would rather not receive nor write. > It offers significant improvement of speed of work. Again, only if you either generate slop you don't care about, or try generating someone more complex without bother to very carefuly read through it and consider anything that might be missing. > LibreOffice is free, but it does not offer possibilities to work faster for > workers. We should not aim to increase writing speed through the generation of text; and we should not encourage people's ability to express themselves atrophying because some LLM is filling in text for them. > Most PC has enough performance to run free dumb models through ollama. You are undermining your argument by calling the model you're suggesting "dumb"... Also, regardless of whether model is dumb or not - we should definitely not rely on maxing out the performance of "most PCs": We should be frugal in the use of resources. Granted, that objection can be circumvented by making the use of LLM an optional feature, but then - that would make it even closer to what an extension offers. > Can you please consider add following features (i ordered them from most > important): > > - Text summarization Oh no. > - Content generation/drafting > - Writing style improvement > - Paraphrasing and rewriting > - Tone adjustment > - Outlining and structuring > - Autocomplete and predictive text I argued above that we should discourage this on principle. > - Translation This may be useful, but - you would need to convince that it should be an integral feature rather than an extension. > - Grammar and spelling correction If you can argue that our current mechanism for spelling is worse than using an LLM-based one, that might be a suggestion worth considering, separately. > - Research assistance More like research derailment... > - Citation and reference formatting We already have a mechanism for that. > - Data analysis and insights from text > - Image generation from descriptions > - Content extraction from images Out of scope for Writer. > - SEO optimization Out of scope for Writer, plus, mostly illegitimate and socially detrimental I would say. > - Table and chart generation We have decent chart generation in Calc; and we have text-to-table in Writer. > - Fact-checking Let's do even better than an LLM and integrate queries to the magic 8-ball online for fact checking! https://magic-8ball.com > - Readability analysis We should not commit to whatever some LLM thinks about readability as LO's opinion regarding whether or not some text is readable. > - Accessibility suggestions To the extent we can do that, we don't need an LLM to do it. > - Template creation How is an LLM relevant to that? > - Document comparison We don't need an LLM for that. > - Transcription and speech-to-text > - Text-to-speech narration Either out of scope, the OS/DE's job, or a matter for an extension. > - Formatting assistance You're essentially suggesting we facilitate and encourage direct formatting. > - Content extraction from PDFs Can you show an LLM or other FOSS AI-ish system which does this robustly? Even then I would be suspicious, but this is something I would suggest filing as a separate bug. > Performance boost of workers and writers. Currently world is not imaginable > without writing reports in 1 minute instead of hour with great formatting. Somehow, I am reminded of this: https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/7512-idiocracy -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
