I think [AI] tags would be good. That way a certain subset of members could just drive-by downvote without getting themselves dirty. [NOT AI] seems redudant since we've already defined [AI], but again for quick filtering purposes, I see no harm in both.
Having both an [AI] and a [not AI] tag allows immediate differentiation between a not AI post and a did not tag post.
That way a certain subset of members could just drive-by downvote without getting themselves dirty.
I think tags could be alright but only if this is not allowed, it is unreasonable to ask people to disclose something just so others can shit on them for it.
A mandatory [AI] tag? Sure.
A [NOT AI] tag? No, that's the default. Why normalise AI bullshit even further?
But mandating [NOT AI] means that people have to go out of their way to declare their work is AI-free. It requires active lying rather than lying by omission—I think there are a non-zero number of people who would be inclined to omit an AI tag but would not want to go as far as explicitly lying about their work being AI-free.
Agreed. "Failed to disclose" isn't condemned as harshly as "Blatantly lied", even if it should be. So obfuscating a project's AI usage may be seen as less risky than being upfront about it.
A responsibly transparent project should advertise itself as AI-free if it truly is.
Yes, please. I don't like seeing a "neat handy application" only to find that 95% of it was coded by Claude, the fact of which is either buried, or not even mentioned until you visit the repo and see that it's the top contributor.
Generally accompanied by crickets to questions a out the project and on some cases some large list of vulnerabilities on some projects that got popular enough.
I absolutely don't want Meta Tags in every titles. It makes reading the list of posts super annoying.
I also don't feel the need to know whether there's some AI commits, but I do want to know if a project is largely vibe coded. I don't have an objective metric on where this line could be drawn.
I think the status quo is kinda fine. Some commenter will point it out and will get enough upvotes to be visible on first glance. It's not perfect but good enough for me.
I find myself commenting three questions on any post about a new application somebody developed.
Personally, I wouldn't mind if all new app posts were required to answer these questions for their post. It doesn't discriminate, it just asks them to lay their cards on the table for everyone to see. The community can judge from there.
Some commenter will point it out and will get enough upvotes to be visible on first glance. It’s not perfect but good enough for me.
I don't necessarily disagree here, however there is always the edge case of a certain overly-vocal group being 100% anti-AI, and that any usage of AI is considered a crime against humanity.
I'm not part of that group per se, but I also want full disclosure. If you used AI to get things going and handled it yourself from there, that's one thing. Constant commits from Claude or whatever is a whole different bucket of shit I refuse to touch.
I feel like this could lead to discrimination and prejudice against ai users. It should have been implemented years ago.
To clarify...you're in favour of discrimination and prejudice against ai users?
Yes. They should be told to sit in the corner with a big cone shaped hat on like the old days.
No tag for not AI.
Only AI tags needed, which helps remind people that slop should be warned against. We don't need to warn for slop free apps
Just ban AI already
This is a better plan.
Either ban vibe coded projects entirely or ban vibe coded projects that have less than a year of history. If allowing "mature" vibe coded projects, require the tag.
Spaces like this become so much worse when "i made this last week look at the shiny ui 🎉🎉🎉🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀" projects that will never ever see any form of maintenance are allowed.
Yes. Anything made, posted, modified, or output by AI should be tagged as such, always, without exception.
Including immich, home assistant, syncthing, docker....
Right? Right?
https://github.blog/news-insights/research/survey-ai-wave-grows/
Yes.
Yes.
Having the tags? Sure.
Making them mandatory? Only if we have 1.- an actual process to determine whether a tag is incorrectly applied (up to a respectable level of confidence) and 2.- an adequate, *enforceable+ punishment for infringers.
What does it mean for a project to deserve the [AI] tag? This matters, because you may have a lot of projects where a developer may think "no" and someone else thinks "yes". Some examples from my day job:
In these examples the developer carefully reviews the AI's output, which I think distinguishes it from vibe-coded slop, which at least is what I want to ignore.
It's also worth noting that an open-source project may receive and incorporate a well-written contribution where the human developer used AI carefully like this. Unless they disclosed that they used AI, it may be unknowable to the project maintainers whether their project is [AI] or not, depending on how you define it. What tag should these projects use?
Sir, this is Lemmy. If you use AI in any way, you are clearly in league with the devil and deserve to burn.
I agree with all your points, BTW.
I posted this discussion because I wanted to explore both guard rails AND nuance around that sort of work flow, particularly for our new mod (and in light of several other scattered convos).
A lot of the diffuse FuckAI Lemmy crowd have poor understanding of code workflow. "AI bad" knee jerks so hard it's going to dislocate something.
I've tried to argue this point, because roughly... ooh...100% of code gen touches AI something. So, do we tag everything?
What people really want is a [SLOP] tag, which is both lazy / not doing your own due diligence and impossible to implement.
In hindsight, I think the pragmatic approach is ultimately the workable (albeit blunted) one. Have the ai tag. It flattens everything but if stops brigading and slop, that's the least amount of moderation work.
I appreciate you posting btw.
Absolutely.
I think that unless you have some way to enforce accuracy, it's meaningless and AFAIK automatic detection tools are no better than chance and to my knowledge, getting worse.
An AI bot operator isn't going to tag their material as [AI], more likely than not they'd attempt to use [NOT AI].
I'd also point out that while lemmy doesn't (yet) support hashtags, any "tagging" would probably benefit from using the existing method using a #tag.
Ultimately, you need to ask yourself, is undeclared AI that goes undetected by the community a problem, or the new "normal"?
I'll note that I'm not a proponent of Assumed Intelligence and think that when the bubble bursts we're going to be in a world of hurt, but with a little luck the billionaires will have lost their shirts in the process.
Please do! It's always my first question when reading new projects.
See, the problem with this is there’s no objective standard for validating whether somebody is telling the truth or not. So we can impose conventions that say you must tag something as being generated in a certain way, but that doesn’t mean that people are going to actually be forthcoming with the community.
This is a problem that we’re going to have to deal with not just when we’re talking about our self hosted builds, but almost anything that is mediated through a screen. So, if we can figure it out for here, I’d suggest that we tell everybody shortly thereafter; about it because it‘ll solve a lot of problems, in a lot of different places.
Bonus points if whatever we come up with can actually be self hosted.
I think the reality is that people will downvote the AI posts, and that will incentivise people to not disclose it or outright lie. The other thing that came to mind here is the fact that I've been trying to set my RSS reader up to not show me anything if AI is mentioned. It turns out that I haven't been able to do that because it couldn't discern "AI" from "fair", "pair", "air" etc. but the sentiment was there because I'm sick of hearing about it, and I imagine a lot of people are. This could cause readers or whatever else is configured to block AI content to block the non-ai content too, just because it's mentioned. Additionally it does bring AI to the forefront, which doesn't help with that AI fatigue.
/r/selfhosted has an automod comment that creates a place to disclose how genAI/LLMs were used in the project and the post. I like that.
That seems a lot more useful than binary tags. There's a wide spectrum between fully vibe-coded slop and hand-written with vim.
I would love to see an [AI] tag, so I can easily hide it. Coupled with temporary bans in case of missing disclosure it would really sanitize the community
I think this is a major over generalisation that misses the main point of why people don't want AI projects. The real questions are:
Idk how to address these things really. I could see the AI tag going both ways, but I do think it's painting with too broad a brush.
If you see this seal:
You know the project is golden. It uses a no-ai policy specifically.
https://sciactive.com/human-contribution-policy/
We should be pushing projects to adopt this policy (or similar) to have a very clear indicator when something is not slop.
Yes please.
I agree with others who said AI tag for AI helped projects, no tags for normal projects.
No - the rabid AI hate here is... ridiculous. This only feeds it.
I hate python. Just hate it. Should I require that everyone posting indicates what language they use so that I can properly hate on the python projects?
Besides - how are you defining "AI"? Used to help? Writes the entire thing? Used for auto-complete? Should we really be gatekeeping like this? In 10 years it'll become rare to find anything not using AI anyway. The rabid AI haters will always be around though.
Software has gone many decades without the need of LLM assistance, I vote to tag “Ai” and “Non-Ai” assisted posts.
+1
Or you don't allow AI
I hate it when the default state is turned into the negative. Every time I have to specify "unsweet tea" I feel the sands of my lifeforce slipping away.
Good/bad content is the same whether it’s AI or not, plus those using AI would probably just lie and say it’s not AI.
I feel it's a little dangerous, because it would give a false sense of security in [no-ai] projects.
We have all seen tons of projects 100% written without any AI that are very poorly coded and full of insecurities.
I know nothing about running a Lemmy instance, so I thought I'd ask. Does the Lemmy framework allow something like this:
spoiler
If so, maybe that'd be less annoying to some. The screenshot is from selfh.st.
A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.
Rules:
Be civil.
No spam.
Posts are to be related to self-hosting.
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or readme if you're providing a link.
Submission headline should match the article title.
No trolling.
Promotion posts require active participation, with an account that is at least 30 days old. F/LOSS without a paywall has exceptions, with requirements. See the rules link for details. Tags [CBH] or [AIP] are required, see the links in Rule 8 for details.
AI-related discussions and AI-involved promotional posts have additional requirements for tagging, as noted in Rule 7 and the AI & Promotional Post Expanded Rules post, and find example disclosures here.
Resources:
Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.
Questions? DM the mods!