Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

iTerm2 removes AI feature from core, creates separate plugin

gitlab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 148 posts

Re: iTerm2 removes AI feature from core, creates separate plugin

#91

Post by guitarlimeo »

ecjhdnc2025 wrote: post #49
glhaynes wrote: post #13

People 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.

It's an interesting point. I too am deeply skeptical and worried, and I would be concerned people think I am "anti-AI". Which I am not -- not least because it's a sixty-plus-year-old discipline that has a development history that spans long before OpenAI and the current burst of empty calories. But if there's something I am building into my personality, it is rejecting (and calling out) grift. That is what makes me s…

Well said and I share the same sentiment. AI is not inherently bad, but the hype and the culture surrounding it most certainly has at least weird if not bad vibes (looking at you r/singularity).

Re: iTerm2 removes AI feature from core, creates separate plugin

#92

Post by mdeeks »

akira2501 wrote: post #38
Cu3PO42 wrote: post #22

I feel really sorry for the developer. I've only been a casual observer, but from my view point the community's reaction was... not great, to put it lightly. I get that a lot of us are tired of 'AI' being shoved down our throat at every possible turn. I get that a lot of us have privacy concerns. I get that maybe you don't want it in your terminal emulator. But iTerm is a free (both as in gratis and as in libre) open…

[flagged]

Because it is a legitimately useful feature? I've already used it multiple times just today.

It isn't much different than the Github Copilot CLI feature `gh copilot suggest "how do I do X?"`. It actually has a better user experience IMHO. You get to see and edit the suggestion quickly and easily. It's always just a cmd+y away too.

Re: iTerm2 removes AI feature from core, creates separate plugin

#93

Post by TheCoreh »

bangaladore wrote: post #61

I'd suggest everyone go read the issue thread ( https://gitlab.com/gnachman/iterm2/-/issues/11470 ) before commenting. It seems abundantly clear that people are being overly negative about a feature that realistically has no security concerns (even as originally developed). Many commenters did not even know how the feature worked (assumed all keystrokes were being sent by default, etc...) One outright said that the f…

> I don't care if there's a buried flag that enables or disables this behaviour. I want a binary that doesn't have this capability in it at all.

That's a rather absurd way of approaching the threat model of data exfiltration on a terminal app.

By its very definition a terminal needs the ability to spawn unsandboxed processes and send/receive input from/to them, including processes that have network access. Even if the binary doesn't contain specific logic to do this it could invoke curl, or a variety of other binaries that do, either on purpose or accidentally. In addition, it links against AppKit, which includes NSURLRequest. Is that off-limits too?

If one's this allergic to OpenAI, that even an opt-in feature is a concern, they're better off using a firewall like Little Snitch, or blocking it at the DNS level.

Additionally, if you don't trust the developer with this, why would you trust a binary from them without this feature?

Re: iTerm2 removes AI feature from core, creates separate plugin

#94

Post by ecjhdnc2025 »

guitarlimeo wrote: post #91
ecjhdnc2025 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an interesting point. I too am deeply skeptical and worried, and I would be concerned people think I am "anti-AI". Which I am not -- not least because it's a sixty-plus-year-old discipline that has a development history that spans long before OpenAI and the current burst of empty calories. But if there's something I am building into my personality, it is rejecting (and calling out) grift. That is what makes me s…

Well said and I share the same sentiment. AI is not inherently bad, but the hype and the culture surrounding it most certainly has at least weird if not bad vibes (looking at you r/singularity).

I am fully aware that eventually I will need to engage with it -- not least because I want to be teaching.

But I'm really interested in finding a maximally-ethical way through it all. The MagPi magazine has just started an article series about applications of ethical, non-infringing models and on-device AI, so I think there must be an emerging trend line around that.

Though whenever I see people talking about ethical AI stewardship the debate seems to be about one specific corporation which is run by a guy who launched a "let us scan your iris and we'll give you crypto" business.

Re: iTerm2 removes AI feature from core, creates separate plugin

#95

Post by amirhirsch »

akira2501 wrote: post #38
Cu3PO42 wrote: post #22

I feel really sorry for the developer. I've only been a casual observer, but from my view point the community's reaction was... not great, to put it lightly. I get that a lot of us are tired of 'AI' being shoved down our throat at every possible turn. I get that a lot of us have privacy concerns. I get that maybe you don't want it in your terminal emulator. But iTerm is a free (both as in gratis and as in libre) open…

[flagged]

I wanted this feature. I hadn't used iTerm until now. I think the AI command lookup was executed very well. I just donated $10. Thanks George!

Re: iTerm2 removes AI feature from core, creates separate plugin

#96

Post by stnmtn »

mhurron wrote: post #60
atkailash wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. You have to provide it your own API key. If you don’t want it, don’t put it in and bam, no problem

Except that it can be. As was pointed out in the original issue to remove it, the feature is not disabled, it is unconfigured. Put anything in the box for the OpenAI key, valid or not, and the functionality to send data to OpenAI is active. Accidentally put a [space] in that box and it looks like there is nothing there, but it's doing things you didn't expect. That was the wrong way to do it. The feature should have…

You still have to take the action to enable the AI features even if you just have a " " character in that field, no? It doesn't send anything to openAI until you open the prompt for it to do so.

Re: iTerm2 removes AI feature from core, creates separate plugin

#97

Post by Xelynega »

hwbehrens wrote: post #55
janice1999 wrote: post #10

I'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.

> the attitude of the developer in the response has certainly convinced me to never become one If you are a Mac user and not using (or at least considering) iTerm2, you are doing yourself a disservice. It is by far the best terminal emulator available and runs circles around the built-in option. If you are a not a Mac user, then the entire discussion is moot either way.

iTerm is pretty mid for a mac terminal emulator in my opinion.

Before it I would recommend kitty or alacritty.

Re: iTerm2 removes AI feature from core, creates separate plugin

#98

Post by sys_64738 »

ThrowawayTestr wrote: post #23
janice1999 wrote: post #10

I'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.

>very valid concerns The AI stuff is disabled by default, the concerns are unfounded.

In security, minimization is always preferred over hardening. Always.

Re: iTerm2 removes AI feature from core, creates separate plugin

#99

Post by bangaladore »

TheCoreh wrote: post #93
bangaladore wrote: post #61

I'd suggest everyone go read the issue thread ( https://gitlab.com/gnachman/iterm2/-/issues/11470 ) before commenting. It seems abundantly clear that people are being overly negative about a feature that realistically has no security concerns (even as originally developed). Many commenters did not even know how the feature worked (assumed all keystrokes were being sent by default, etc...) One outright said that the f…

> I don't care if there's a buried flag that enables or disables this behaviour. I want a binary that doesn't have this capability in it at all. That's a rather absurd way of approaching the threat model of data exfiltration on a terminal app. By its very definition a terminal needs the ability to spawn unsandboxed processes and send/receive input from/to them, including processes that have network access. Even if th…

Agreed. This issue thread makes it apparent why many open source developers give up.

Re: iTerm2 removes AI feature from core, creates separate plugin

#100

Post by akira2501 »

zeroxfe wrote: post #43
akira2501 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> why did the developer decide to add the feature in the first place? Was it community feedback or some other mechanism that inspired this choice? You're moving the goalposts and again putting the developer in a position where they have to justify themselves. Which they don't. As GP puts it: "But iTerm is a free (both as in gratis and as in libre) open source project. The developer released a feature that they were p…

> putting the developer in a position where they have to justify themselves

I'm putting those who offer criticism of the community at large in a position to justify why they're surprised by the outcome.

> The developer released a feature that they were probably happy and excited about.

Then they should ignore the criticism. If you want to build what your heart desires there is nothing stopping you.

If you expect the community who uses your software to uncritically accept what you've done and offer no negative feedback then the fact you've given it away for free (while at the same time accepting sponsorship money) is not a valid position to take.

Post reply on HN