Edit: It will be through extensions, apparently.
-
@paulk This article is incorrect. There is no such thing as "LibreOffice 26.4 beta". And LibreOffice is not "introducing AI" in any way. Some community members are working on optional, separate extensions but that's another matter.
@libreoffice Thank you for correcting this. How odd that LinuxJournal reported on this.
-
@ashwin @paulk There's no need for any fork because the article is misleading. First, there is no such thing at all as "LibreOffice 26.4 beta". The next major release will be LibreOffice 26.8, due to go into beta in early June. So the article author just invented that, apparently.
And LibreOffice is not "introducing AI" into the software. There are no plans to put AI in LibreOffice. Some people are working on optional extensions.
@libreoffice @ashwin @paulk very glad to hear this! i am completely unimpressed with everyone making LLM plugins for emacs, but emacs itself continues to ensure it can be trusted by experts for decades of reliable usage. i'm glad to hear libreoffice's extension API is powerful enough to allow this (although an LLM plugin is basically the hello world of plugins).
-
@libreoffice @ashwin @paulk very glad to hear this! i am completely unimpressed with everyone making LLM plugins for emacs, but emacs itself continues to ensure it can be trusted by experts for decades of reliable usage. i'm glad to hear libreoffice's extension API is powerful enough to allow this (although an LLM plugin is basically the hello world of plugins).
@libreoffice @ashwin @paulk is there a single "extension API" for libreoffice, or do specific tools like writer have their own extension APIs?
-
@paulk Is this article hallucinated by AI? The LibreOffice version numbers end in .2 and .8 (ie, released in February and August). 26.4 doesn’t exist. All discussions I’ve seen about integrating AI have always been very negative and the conclusion is that we should leave that up to optional extensions.
@bpeel @paulk This was exactly my idea, especially as I read the corrections made here in comments by @libreoffice
The author of this article perhaps looked too deep into an,LLM to write it. -
@libreoffice Thank you for correcting this. How odd that LinuxJournal reported on this.
@paulk Yes. We're very surprised too...
-
@ashwin @paulk There's no need for any fork because the article is misleading. First, there is no such thing at all as "LibreOffice 26.4 beta". The next major release will be LibreOffice 26.8, due to go into beta in early June. So the article author just invented that, apparently.
And LibreOffice is not "introducing AI" into the software. There are no plans to put AI in LibreOffice. Some people are working on optional extensions.
@libreoffice Thanks, very good news, Indeed.
-
@ashwin @paulk There's no need for any fork because the article is misleading. First, there is no such thing at all as "LibreOffice 26.4 beta". The next major release will be LibreOffice 26.8, due to go into beta in early June. So the article author just invented that, apparently.
And LibreOffice is not "introducing AI" into the software. There are no plans to put AI in LibreOffice. Some people are working on optional extensions.
@libreoffice
That's exciting to hear. Will the new LOOL be part of that release? For now we're building on the tiredofit container, but when available, we can switch and help testing. -
@paulk This article is incorrect. There is no such thing as "LibreOffice 26.4 beta". And LibreOffice is not "introducing AI" in any way. Some community members are working on optional, separate extensions but that's another matter.
-
R relay@relay.mycrowd.ca shared this topic
-
@paulk This article is incorrect. There is no such thing as "LibreOffice 26.4 beta". And LibreOffice is not "introducing AI" in any way. Some community members are working on optional, separate extensions but that's another matter.
@libreoffice @paulk It is puzzling why The Linux Journal would publish something so patently misleading and wrong.
-
@libreoffice @paulk It is puzzling why The Linux Journal would publish something so patently misleading and wrong.
@housepanther @paulk Yes, exactly...
