LibreOffice Treats Its Decision to Leave AI Out as a Feature

Table of Contents

• You might want to know


• Main Topic


• Key Insights Table


• Afterwards...

You might want to know

• Why does LibreOffice regard the absence of built-in artificial intelligence as a meaningful software choice?


• Can users still connect LibreOffice to AI tools while keeping greater control over their documents?

Main Topic

For people seeking a document editor without built-in artificial intelligence, LibreOffice may be an appealing option. The Document Foundation, the nonprofit organization behind the open-source office suite, says it does not reject AI in principle. However, it does not plan to add AI features to the software for the foreseeable future. The position reflects a broader question facing software developers: whether new capabilities should be included by default, especially when they may affect privacy, user choice, or the basic experience of using an application.

The foundation recently reiterated its position in a blog post, following the release of the latest LibreOffice version in late August. It said that the software “contains no generative AI features.” Rather than presenting this as an omission, the organization described it as a deliberate design choice. LibreOffice is intended to let people create and edit documents without requiring those documents to be sent to a remote service for processing, and no part of the software requires a network connection to function.

This approach matters because documents can contain sensitive information. People and organizations use office software for everything from routine notes to confidential business records, personal information, and legally privileged material. When an AI feature processes a document on a remote server, users may need to understand what information is transmitted, how it is handled, and how long it is retained. The answers can depend on the specific provider and service.

The Document Foundation argues that organizations responsible for sensitive data need clarity about where that information goes. As it put the point, “Any organisation handling confidential, legally privileged or personal data needs to know where that data goes, and the only assurance that survives an audit is that it does not leave the machine.” This statement highlights the difference between relying on a provider’s data-handling assurances and designing software so that processing does not require sending the document away in the first place.

LibreOffice’s central promise is not that AI has no value; it is that users should not have to give up local control of their documents to use the default software. For people who prefer a conventional, offline-capable editor, an AI-free default can offer a clearer understanding of how the application behaves. It also avoids making AI-related data transfers an unavoidable part of ordinary document editing.

At the same time, LibreOffice does not prevent users from choosing AI tools. Users can install software extensions that connect the editor to local AI models. This distinction leaves the decision with the individual or organization: AI functionality can be added when desired, rather than being embedded automatically into the default installation. The choice of extension and model still matters, since users should assess how each option handles information and whether it runs locally or depends on an external service.

The policy contrasts with a growing tendency among software companies to add AI features across a wide range of products. Chatbots, writing assistants, and automated suggestions are increasingly presented as standard components of modern applications. Some users find these tools helpful, but others see them as unnecessary additions that make software more complicated or intrusive. Critics sometimes use the term “enshittification” to describe the perceived decline of digital products as unwanted or bloated features accumulate.

That criticism has prompted some developers to build tools that block or remove AI features. The debate is not simply about whether AI can perform useful tasks. It also concerns whether users should have to accept new functions, interface changes, or data practices as a condition of using familiar software. An application that keeps its default experience simpler may appeal to people who value predictability and direct control over their working environment.

Remote processing is a particular source of concern. Many AI tools rely on users’ data being uploaded to a server, where it is processed by a service provider. Users may have limited control over the server’s storage practices, retention periods, or future use of submitted information. Those concerns can be especially important in workplaces, public institutions, and other settings where data-handling responsibilities are strict. Local processing can reduce the need to transmit documents, although the practical protections depend on the particular software and configuration.

The Document Foundation says that no current integration meets all of its requirements. Among the considerations it identifies are keeping users’ data on their devices and avoiding dependence on a single AI provider. These criteria suggest that adding AI is not just a matter of inserting a convenient feature into the interface. The organization would also need to evaluate how the technology operates, what data it requires, how users can select or change providers, and whether the resulting system remains consistent with LibreOffice’s design principles.

The foundation has stressed that its current stance is not a definitive rejection of AI or a judgment on the value of the broader sector. Instead, it describes the decision as an assessment of the technology available today. That leaves open the possibility that future tools could satisfy its requirements. The organization has not committed to a timeline for such a change; its stated approach is to monitor how the technology develops while keeping AI out of the default installation for now.

In its blog post, LibreOffice said: “Until then, there will be no AI of any kind in the default installation; extensions will be available for those who wish to integrate AI features, and we will closely monitor where the technology is actually heading.” This policy creates a practical dividing line between the software’s standard experience and optional extensions. Users who want AI can explore add-ons, while those who do not can continue using the application without built-in AI functions.

LibreOffice is part of a wider ecosystem of open-source and alternative software that people use to reduce their reliance on major technology companies based in Silicon Valley. Open-source applications can offer users more visibility into how software is developed and a different set of priorities from products controlled by large commercial platforms. That does not automatically resolve every concern about privacy or usability, but it gives users another choice when deciding which tools to trust with their work.

Ultimately, LibreOffice’s decision makes the absence of a feature part of its identity. It frames AI not as an inevitable addition, but as a capability that should meet specific standards before becoming part of a default product. That approach invites users to consider what they expect from office software: more automation, fewer network dependencies, stronger local control, or a balance that can vary by task and setting.

Key Insights Table

Afterwards...

The questions raised by LibreOffice’s policy are likely to become more important as AI tools are integrated into everyday applications. Developers, organizations, and users will need clearer ways to evaluate where data is processed, what information is retained, and how much control people have over the systems handling their work. Better documentation and transparent settings could help users make informed choices without requiring them to become experts in every service’s technical design.

Local AI models are one area worth exploring further. If they can provide useful assistance directly on a user’s device, they may reduce dependence on remote servers and give people more control over sensitive information. Yet local tools also require careful evaluation of their capabilities, resource needs, security, and ease of use. The label “local” alone does not answer every question about how an application behaves or what data it may access.

Another important area is interoperability. Software that can work with multiple AI providers—or with no provider at all—may give organizations more flexibility than systems tied to a single service. Open standards, clear extension permissions, and understandable privacy controls could help users choose tools that fit their needs. The broader challenge is to make advanced technology optional, transparent, and accountable rather than an automatic condition of using essential software.

LibreOffice’s decision does not settle the debate over AI in productivity software. It does, however, show that a product can define its value through restraint as well as innovation. As AI capabilities evolve, continued attention to user consent, local processing, data governance, and genuinely useful design will help determine whether new features serve people—or simply make software more complicated.