Hi - I answer from the OpenSmartRoute documentation: routing, the API, plans and quotas, self-hosting. Ask away, or open a support ticket if you need a person.
Grounded in the docs - follow a source before acting on it.
LibreOffice refuses AI by default in new software update - OpenSmartRoute
LibreOffice announces it will not add AI to its default installation
LibreOffice is a popular open source document editor used by millions of people. It allows users to create, edit, and save text documents on their computers. The nonprofit group behind LibreOffice has made a clear decision about artificial intelligence. They stated they will not include generative AI features in the standard software package. This announcement comes from a blog post released this week.
The latest version of LibreOffice was released in late August. In that release, the organization reiterated its stance on AI technology. The software explicitly contains no generative AI features at present. Users who expect an AI assistant will find none in the main application. This marks a shift away from the trend of adding more AI tools to existing apps.
The decision affects how users interact with their documents. It means basic editing functions remain available without any AI assistance. People can still type, format, and save files using standard methods. The absence of AI ensures that the core experience remains simple and predictable. Engineers who run models might notice fewer API calls from this popular tool.
For managers deciding what software to buy, this is a significant factor. It removes the need to negotiate terms with an AI provider for basic office work. Organizations can avoid unexpected data transfers to external servers. The standard installation is designed to work entirely offline or on local networks. This provides a baseline level of control over where documents are stored.
A new open-source tool lets Mac users turn off Apple Intelligence and free up to 12GB of storage. macOS 27 lacks a native toggle to disable these AI features.
Users who want AI capabilities have other options available to them. They can choose to install software extensions that connect the editor to models. These extensions allow for integration with local AI systems if desired. The decision to add such tools remains up to the individual user. LibreOffice does not block these additions, it simply does not include them by default.
This move positions LibreOffice as a tool for data-conscious users. It appeals to those who prioritize privacy and security in their daily workflows. Many organizations handle confidential information that cannot be sent over the internet. The software supports this need by refusing to upload documents to remote servers. It ensures that sensitive files stay within the user's own environment.
The announcement does not mean LibreOffice hates AI technology. The organization acknowledges the value of generative AI in many contexts. They simply believe the current state of the technology poses risks. These risks include unauthorized data access and loss of control over information. The software aims to protect users from these potential dangers by design.
Engineers who manage large document workflows will appreciate this clarity. They no longer need to guess if a document will be sent away. The behavior is consistent and predictable across different versions. This reduces the complexity of maintaining secure document management systems. It simplifies the process of auditing where data goes when it is created.
For those running private models locally, this is an important development. It means LibreOffice can serve as a client for local inference engines. Users can build their own AI stack around the document editor. The software provides a stable foundation for custom integrations. This flexibility is valuable for teams with specific security requirements.
The timing of this announcement matters in the current tech landscape. Many other software makers are rushing to include AI features. Some do so without fully considering the privacy implications. LibreOffice takes a different approach by prioritizing user control first. It waits until the technology meets stricter standards before integration.
This stance contrasts with the behavior of many commercial document editors. Those competitors often bundle AI assistants into their standard packages. They may not offer easy ways to disable these features later. LibreOffice gives users full control from the moment they install the software. This transparency builds trust among privacy-focused communities and organizations.
The decision reflects a growing awareness of data sovereignty issues. People are becoming more concerned about who owns their digital information. They want assurance that their documents do not leave their devices. LibreOffice addresses this concern directly in its design philosophy. It refuses to compromise on data location for the sake of convenience.
Engineers working with document processing pipelines will find this helpful. It removes a variable from their system architecture calculations. They can plan for local-only processing without AI dependencies. This makes it easier to build compliant systems for regulated industries. Legal teams and compliance officers will also value this predictable behavior.
The blog post confirms that this is not a temporary experiment. The organization intends to maintain this policy for the foreseeable future. It suggests a long-term commitment to data protection principles. Users can rely on this stance without fearing sudden changes. This stability is crucial for organizations managing sensitive records over time.
The Document Foundation explains its deliberate design position against AI
The Document Foundation is the nonprofit group that develops LibreOffice. They manage the project and make decisions about its direction. Their mission includes keeping software free, open, and secure for everyone. In their recent blog post, they explained why they are excluding AI features. They described it as a deliberate design position rather than a rejection of AI itself.
This means the choice is intentional and strategic. It is not based on a belief that AI is useless or harmful in principle. The focus is on the specific risks associated with current AI implementations. These risks involve how data is handled during processing and storage. The organization wants to avoid any scenario where user documents leave their control.
The core concern is about data uploading to remote servers. Many AI tools require connections to cloud services for operation. This creates a pathway for data to be stored outside the user's device. Users often have no visibility into how this data is used or retained. The Document Foundation views this lack of control as unacceptable for their standards.
They emphasize that users must know exactly where their data goes. This knowledge is essential for handling confidential or personal information. Legal privilege and privacy laws require strict adherence to data location rules. An audit can only verify security if the data never leaves the machine. The organization insists on this absolute assurance for all their users.
The decision applies to the entire standard installation of LibreOffice. It covers all document types and editing functions within the main app. No part of the software requires a network connection to function normally. This offline capability is a key feature that many users rely on daily. It allows work to continue even without internet access available.
This design choice replaces the need for complex backend infrastructure. Users do not need to configure proxy servers or API keys. The simplicity of the tool comes from removing these external dependencies. It reduces the attack surface for potential security breaches. Fewer connections mean fewer points where data could be intercepted.
The organization also considers the impact on user experience. Adding AI features often introduces latency and complexity into workflows. Users might face unexpected delays or errors when using these tools. The current design prioritizes speed and reliability over automated assistance. This ensures that document editing remains smooth and responsive for everyone.
Engineers who build custom solutions will understand this logic better. They know how difficult it is to ensure data privacy in distributed systems. Building a secure AI integration requires significant effort and oversight. The Document Foundation chooses not to attempt this burden on their users. They prefer to keep the core tool simple and safe by default.
This approach aligns with broader principles of open source software development. It respects the autonomy of individual users and organizations. People should have the choice to add features if they wish. But the base product should not force these capabilities upon them. This philosophy protects users from unwanted data collection practices.
The Document Foundation recognizes that technology evolves over time. They do not make a permanent judgment on the value of AI as a sector. Their assessment is based on the current state of available tools. They will monitor the industry to see if standards improve significantly. If conditions change, they may revisit their position in the future.
For now, the focus remains on protecting user data from remote processing. This includes preventing any automatic upload of document contents. It also means avoiding features that analyze text without explicit permission. The software treats user documents as private property that stays local. This builds a strong foundation for trust within the community.
Managers who evaluate software vendors will see this as a positive trait. It indicates a commitment to security and user rights. Companies that ignore these concerns often face regulatory scrutiny later. LibreOffice avoids these pitfalls by being proactive about data handling. Their policy reduces the risk of future compliance issues for their users.
The explanation provided clarifies that this is not a limitation on innovation. It is a guardrail against potential misuse of collected data. Users can still access powerful AI tools through extensions. The choice to add them remains entirely voluntary and user-driven. This balance allows progress while maintaining strict privacy controls.
Engineers working on local model deployments will find this supportive. It means LibreOffice can act as a client for their private infrastructure. They do not need to worry about the document editor sending data elsewhere. The integration points exist for those who want to build custom workflows. This flexibility is valuable for teams with unique security needs.
The Document Foundation's stance sets a new benchmark for software design. It challenges the industry norm of maximizing feature sets at all costs. By refusing AI by default, they prioritize fundamental user rights. This decision could influence how other projects approach similar ethical questions. It encourages developers to consider data location in their architecture plans.
Users who care about privacy will welcome this clear direction. It removes ambiguity about what the software does with their files. They can use it confidently without worrying about hidden data streams. The transparency of the policy is as important as the policy itself. It empowers users to make informed decisions about their digital lives.
Technical details about why existing integrations fail LibreOffice criteria
LibreOffice has specific requirements for any AI integration they would accept. These requirements are designed to ensure total control over data location and usage. Currently, there is no integration that meets all of these strict criteria. The organization states this clearly in their recent blog post announcement.
One major requirement is that user data must stay on the device. No document content can be sent to a remote server for processing. This includes text, images, and any other file types handled by the app. The software must verify that data never leaves the local environment. This verification happens before any AI processing begins or ends.
Another requirement is avoiding reliance on a single AI provider. Users should not have their documents dependent on one company's service. Diversifying providers reduces risk if one vendor fails or changes policies. LibreOffice wants to prevent situations where users are locked into a specific ecosystem. They also want to avoid any single point of failure in the system.
The criteria also consider how data is stored and retained over time. Users expect their documents to remain exactly as they were after processing. Any alteration by an external service could violate this expectation. The software must ensure that no metadata or traces are added externally. This maintains the integrity of the original document for legal and archival purposes.
Technical teams face challenges in meeting these standards today. Most AI models require some form of cloud access for optimal performance. Running models entirely locally demands significant hardware resources. Many users do not have the power to support heavy inference workloads. This creates a practical barrier to full local integration without extensions.
The organization notes that existing integrations fall short on these points. They cannot guarantee the data stays on the machine at all times. Some solutions might cache data temporarily or log usage statistics. These minor compromises are unacceptable under LibreOffice's strict rules. The standard requires absolute certainty about data location and ownership.
Engineers who build local AI stacks must navigate these constraints carefully. They need to design systems that work within these boundaries. This often means optimizing for speed on limited hardware resources. It also involves creating custom interfaces for secure data exchange. The complexity of such a system is higher than standard cloud usage.
The lack of compliant integrations forces users to choose between convenience and control. Most AI tools offer the former at the expense of the latter. LibreOffice refuses to compromise on the latter, even if it means fewer options. Users who value privacy must accept this trade-off in their daily workflow. They can still access AI through extensions but with more setup work.
This technical reality highlights the maturity gap in local AI technology. It is not yet ready for widespread adoption in general-purpose software. The industry needs to solve problems of performance and reliability first. Only then will there be viable options that meet LibreOffice's criteria. Until then, the default installation remains free of AI features.
Managers evaluating vendors should ask about data residency policies directly. They need to know if the vendor can prove local processing capabilities. Standard cloud-based AI services almost always violate these requirements. The cost of building compliant infrastructure is often too high for small teams. This limits the number of organizations that can adopt such solutions effectively.
The technical details show why this decision is not arbitrary. It is based on a genuine assessment of current technological limitations. The organization acknowledges the difficulty but refuses to lower standards. They prefer a simpler, safer tool over a complex, risky one. This philosophy drives their refusal to add AI to the standard package.
Users who need local processing will look for compatible extensions or alternatives. They must research which tools support their specific security needs. There is no one-size-fits-all solution available in the market today. Each integration requires careful testing and validation against LibreOffice's criteria. This due process ensures that only safe options get added to the ecosystem.
The absence of compliant integrations does not mean AI is impossible with LibreOffice. It means users must take active steps to enable any AI functionality. They cannot rely on automatic features being present or secure by default. This responsibility lies with the individual user or organization deploying the software. They must ensure their setup meets all privacy and security standards.
Background on the trend of software adding unnecessary AI features
Many software makers today try to pack as much artificial intelligence into their products. They often add chatbots, assistants, and other automated features without asking users first. This practice is sometimes called "enshittification" in tech criticism circles. It refers to degrading user experience by forcing unwanted functionality upon customers.
The trend has accelerated rapidly in recent years across various industries. Document editors, productivity suites, and operating systems all include AI tools now. These features are often presented as standard upgrades or bundled packages. Users frequently find it difficult to opt out of these capabilities once installed.
Companies argue that AI improves efficiency and adds value to their products. They claim features like auto-summarization or spell-checking save users time daily. However, critics point out the privacy costs associated with this convenience. Data is collected and processed in ways users often do not understand or control. This creates a paradox where tools help work but also monitor work.
The pressure to include AI comes from investors and market expectations. Software companies fear losing relevance if they do not adopt new technologies quickly. They view AI as essential for staying competitive against rivals who offer similar features. This race to the bottom often ignores ethical considerations about data usage.
Users report frustration when these features interfere with their existing workflows. Unexpected prompts or background processing can disrupt focus and productivity. Some users feel their documents are being analyzed without consent. This lack of transparency erodes trust in the software provider over time.
The trend also affects how engineers design and maintain software systems. Developers must account for AI dependencies in their architecture plans. They need to manage API keys, handle rate limits, and monitor service outages. This adds complexity that would not exist with simpler, static tools. The maintenance burden grows as more features are added automatically.
Privacy advocates warn that this trend normalizes surveillance within everyday applications. People become accustomed to having their data accessed by third parties constantly. It becomes harder to demand better protections from software vendors later on. The status quo shifts toward greater data collection and less user autonomy.
LibreOffice's decision stands in direct opposition to this widespread industry behavior. They refuse to follow the path of least resistance for feature inclusion. Instead, they choose a path that prioritizes user control and data safety. This sets them apart from the majority of commercial software providers today.
Engineers who run models locally will see this as validation of their approach. It proves there is demand for tools that respect privacy boundaries. The success of local AI projects could inspire more open-source alternatives to emerge. These competitors might offer similar benefits without the corporate data extraction model.
Managers who buy software should consider the long-term implications of these trends. Relying on vendors with aggressive AI strategies creates ongoing risks and costs. Organizations may face unexpected fees or compliance issues down the line. Choosing tools that align with their security values can prevent these headaches later.
The background context shows why LibreOffice's choice is significant in the market. It challenges the assumption that more AI always means better software. Sometimes, less intrusive features provide a superior user experience overall. Simplicity and control often outweigh automation when privacy is at stake.
Users who are aware of this trend will appreciate the clarity of LibreOffice's policy. They know exactly what to expect from the software they install. There are no hidden surprises or mandatory upgrades waiting in the future. This predictability is valuable for planning long-term digital workflows and strategies.
Why this matters for engineers running models and managing data safety
Engineers who run private models will find this announcement highly relevant to their work. It means LibreOffice can serve as a stable client for local inference engines. They do not need to worry about the document editor sending data away. This simplifies the architecture of their secure document processing pipelines significantly.
For managers overseeing data safety, this is a major relief regarding compliance risks. It removes the uncertainty of whether documents are being uploaded to cloud services. Auditors can verify that no confidential information leaves the organization's network. This assurance is critical for industries with strict regulatory requirements like law or finance.
Rumors suggest Google is expanding its Gemini Call for Me feature beyond business use. An APK teardown showed examples of calling family members with text-like AI messages.
