Seeing that made me worried but when I checked it was opt-in with an option to add an openAI API key, still this is better long term IMHO.
iTerm2 removes AI feature from core, creates separate plugin
11–20 of 148 posts
Re: iTerm2 removes AI feature from core, creates separate plugin
#12It was never really a case of "AI shoved down our throats" anyways. People just assumed it was and got their pitchforks and torches out. The feature was always opt-in. I'm sorry gnachman had to endure this nonsense.
[deleted]
Re: iTerm2 removes AI feature from core, creates separate plugin
#13People are making their whole personalities about being anti-AI. I'm personally a mix of skeptical+worried about AI; but at some point just being a reactionary ninny makes people tune out on whether there might be some truth at the core of your concern.
Re: iTerm2 removes AI feature from core, creates separate plugin
#14The comment for the change contains a note of bitterness: > I have two goals in this change: To allow developers in restrictive but technically incompetent organizations to continue to use iTerm2. That is, they disallow anything that could potentially exfiltrate data, but don't have their act together enough to implement MDM. So that people who hate AI can feel at ease that no AI will happen by accident without havin…
[flagged]
I'm sure he's tired from the horde of idiots angry that he implemented an entirely optional feature.
Re: iTerm2 removes AI feature from core, creates separate plugin
#15The comments are such a facepalm.
> Increases the attack surface
No it doesn’t. It fork/executes the plugin in a different process AND verifies the signature. If an attacker can replace the binary and do things with it, you already have a much larger problem. Even if they do, all it does is pass JSON around, it doesn’t allow you to execute anything from within iTerm (afaik)
> It can be called by any process
It’s not like they were storing your OpenAI API keys in some encrypted format in the first place. If you’re that paranoid, you aren’t gonna be using the AI feature in the first place.
One valid concern I can think of is TCC escalation on MacOS since fork/exec is executed in the context of iTerm. I don’t know if signatures are verified before or after running but the binary probably won’t even run without being signed by a paying Apple Developer anyways.
Edit: commenting on the change, I think it was just fine as is. AI is annoying but it was off by default. Based on the author’s comments, they don’t seem to intend on pushing it in people’s face, just something fun and optional
Re: iTerm2 removes AI feature from core, creates separate plugin
#16The comment for the change contains a note of bitterness: > I have two goals in this change: To allow developers in restrictive but technically incompetent organizations to continue to use iTerm2. That is, they disallow anything that could potentially exfiltrate data, but don't have their act together enough to implement MDM. So that people who hate AI can feel at ease that no AI will happen by accident without havin…
I mean, it's true. The issue was full of people supposedly reporting that iTerm would be banned software because.... ???
I'm not sure what the matrix of organisations is that would ban a sideline feature like this through policy only, and not through technical means like MDN.
Re: iTerm2 removes AI feature from core, creates separate plugin
#17The comment for the change contains a note of bitterness: > I have two goals in this change: To allow developers in restrictive but technically incompetent organizations to continue to use iTerm2. That is, they disallow anything that could potentially exfiltrate data, but don't have their act together enough to implement MDM. So that people who hate AI can feel at ease that no AI will happen by accident without havin…
[flagged]
Ask yourself: is this really a productive comment?
You've got an open-source author that has put a lot of effort into providing something people can use, for free, and your comment above is the toxicity they get in response?
Are you really helping the world of open-source with this type of response?
Re: iTerm2 removes AI feature from core, creates separate plugin
#18The comment for the change contains a note of bitterness: > I have two goals in this change: To allow developers in restrictive but technically incompetent organizations to continue to use iTerm2. That is, they disallow anything that could potentially exfiltrate data, but don't have their act together enough to implement MDM. So that people who hate AI can feel at ease that no AI will happen by accident without havin…
[flagged]
He actually was a joy to work with. George is an awesome human.
Re: iTerm2 removes AI feature from core, creates separate plugin
#19I'm not an iTerm2 user and the attitude of the developer in the response has certainly convinced me to never become one. I understand open source developers get burnt out, particularly with backlash from demanding users who contribute nothing in return, but the contempt for users with very valid concerns about AI and data leaks is not a healthy sign.
Their concerns aren't really valid. It's an entirely optional feature. There is no functional difference between being in the core and being a plugin. Someone who wants to violate exfiltration policies can still do so with maybe one extra step.
Re: iTerm2 removes AI feature from core, creates separate plugin
#20I'm not an iTerm2 user and the attitude of the developer in the response has certainly convinced me to never become one. I understand open source developers get burnt out, particularly with backlash from demanding users who contribute nothing in return, but the contempt for users with very valid concerns about AI and data leaks is not a healthy sign.
You won't use iTerm2 because the dev made a joke about some companies' overly-restrictive IT departments?