Based on recent comments this feels like a discussion we should have. So…topic, basically.
I’m not looking to be chief noisemaker on this, but I stand by what I wrote in !privacy and what’s in my post history.
https://lemmy.ml/post/48724623/26190950
Let’s have at; do we want a [AI] and [NOT AI] tag. Why or why not?
It feels like there’s been an increasing flood of AI slop projects, with varying degrees of monetization / donations. I think it’ll become a huge problem if we don’t have at a minimum very strict rules around AI generated slop projects. I think a mandatory tag with penalty of removal is a good bottom floor, in addition to the recent community participation activity % requirements for promoting monetized projects, which covers a good chunk of AI projects.
Then hopefully soon we can figure out as a community what to do to control the remaining volume of non-strongly-monetized AI slop projects if those are still too widespread, but having it labeled is absolutely needed transparency, and that’ll still be difficult because lots of people seem to lie about not using AI.
I think we should have an AI tag, and “not AI” should be the default (otherwise we add “non-” versions of every tag and post titles are a list of what something isn’t instead of what it is).
Imo, a lot of the tools here have a high security requirement. Either because they handle personal/private information and/or are exposed to the public internet. AI use is a red flag to me that the developer hasn’t properly considered all the security implications of their product.
Yes, it should. Just make it [slop] vs. no tag. Actual content shouldn’t define itself by the abscence of shit.
What I am curious about is why this should be a negative for anyone, devs who want to use AI get an easy way to filter out the people who will kick back against it, the people who will kick back against it get a quieter existence, Lemmy should be happy.
I keep seeing how having to categorise will provide a perverse incentive to not disclose and I guess I don’t understand why that would be the case.
It’s not like they are tricking people into buying these free programs, it’s not like they are soliciting contributions from other devs (they have an AI for that), and its not like there is some sort of score being kept (besides earning some sort of credibility on Github as a pro-AI developer through that star thing I guess).
So what would be the motivation to try to trick the community into embracing these sorts of projects? Open and enthusiastic disclosure and a community push to simply move on if you find that style of development distasteful would work better for everyone.
I have walked away from using a project that was developed with AI and I didn’t feel the need to slam the developer for it, I just moved on. They didn’t betray my trust because they don’t owe me anything, and I didn’t unfairly judge their work because I don’t owe them anything. Everyone’s a winner.
But that’s just my humble opinion.
No, because it’s about the what, and with or without AI is the how.
We don’t have disclosures “built on a Linux/Windows/macOS machine” or “built using IntelliJ/Eclipse” so why is it important what tool was used to do something?
Some people have serious ethical and quality concerns about AI usage in code in a way that’s just irrelevant to the OS and IDE used to code it.
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:
- Is this slop?
- Does a human understand all of this code?
- Did a human design this deliberately or is it completely derivative and uninspired?
- Will a human take responsibility for bugs that come up?
- Did a human write the docs?
- Will this be maintained or just a weekend project with no substance?
- Does this actually serve a purpose?
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.
I’m in the process of launching a new business as a single dev, and I want to be upfront about my use of AI, but I notice as soon as I mention any LLM, most people assume what I’ve built is “vibe coded” without even looking at the applications themselves.
I spent almost two months just setting up the devops side of things before I even considered publishing. Feedback buttons in the apps automatically open issues on my Forgejo, push mirrors to GitHub and Codeberg, and I do weekly progress reports internally (I stopped posting to Lemmy after people felt spammed and now I just post on the site blog)
I’m just not sure how to make it easy to tell that I’m actually putting my heart and soul into building software that should help people.
If curious: https://circuitforge.tech/
I looked at your site. Realistically I think we’re talking about two different things here. There are tools which were programmed with the assistance of AI and then there are AI powered tools. Your stuff is clearly the latter.
I think ai powered tools are a lot harder to sell people on right now. The ai powered area is where I see by far the most shovelware/slop.
To be blunt, when I see a new ai powered tool I assume several things:
- This is low effort slop
- A tech bro vibe coded this 100%
- No one cares about this
- It will either make a ton of money or be abandoned next week
- If it’s popular, anthropic will buy/clone it and everyone will use their version instead
I know this isn’t true of every ai powered app but it’s true of 99% of them right now. I really have no idea how you could convince people yours isnt slop.
One idea might be to stop using the term “AI”. It’s a buzzword with strong connotations. Some people hear it and think “gold rush”, some people think “slop” or “data center”.
Personally I would be a lot more likely to take a project seriously if they used the term “LLM” or “machine learning” to describe what powers the product.
Also, I don’t see anything that looks like obvious AI art to me but DONT USE AI ART. AI art is already terrible on its own but when I see AI art mixed with AI text telling me about an AI powered app I’m 1000% done giving my attention.
For sure on the art. I’m a graphic artist by education and I’m already working with another full-time artist on the application logos. When I make enough I’m planning to hire a proper web developer for the frontend/web design as that’s onc area I do lean pretty heavy on the LLM’s for assistance.
Funny you should mention the AI vs LLM labeling as I much prefer to call them LLM’s or “models”, but I’m trying to keep it accessible for non-technical people. I think I’ll go back through and rename though.
Also most of the tools are deterministic, with the LLM’s filling in gaps where there needs to be some amount of probabilistic interaction, like figuring out what you could cook given only the ingredients in your pantry, or rewriting a resume 26 million ways to satisfy the ATS filters.
If you don’t want to use those features, nothing forcing you. They’re useful for tracking and organizing without the LLM at all.
Yeah… Normies for sure don’t use the term “LLM”. I don’t think it would scare them though. They’re used to being confused 💀
When I see “AI” I think “tech bro hype” whereas “LLM” makes me think the developer is more likely to have a realistic view of the technology.
I guess this depends a lot on your target demo. But but even just cutting down on usage of the exact term “AI” would help I think. Basically anything is better.
I, like other respondents, don’t care if AI is used, I only care if AI was trusted.
AI is a tool to enhance a workflow, and as long as a skilled human is reviewing it and fixing it, fine.
We would be better off defining a programmer’s project vs an ametuer hour vibe coded monstrosity, but that won’t ever really happen.
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:
- Developer used AI to understand part of the codebase and suggest ways to accomplish goal. Developer incorporated that suggestion, though using their own knowledge deviated from AI’s suggestion in parts. Developer wrote the code themselves. Is this project [AI] or [NOT AI]?
- Developer used AI to review existing (human-written) code for quality and security purposes. AI noticed some issues and proposed fixes. Developer reviewed and accepted them. Is this project [AI]?
- Developer knew they wanted to implement a feature, and while implementing it there was a boilerplate function. Developer asked AI to write this function, manually reviewed it, confirmed it worked, and added it to the codebase. Is this project [AI]?
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.
Sir, this is Lemmy. If you use AI in any way, you are clearly in league with the devil and deserve to burn.
Bahahahahahaha!
@festus @selfhosted Excellent examples. What the tag [AI] conveys is not what you really need to know, which is the quality of the code (component/unit), unit testing, and so forth. I assume there is some acceptance testing done at the project level. The human who submits the code must understand that flaws in their code is their responsibility, just as those who contribute/maintain the project are responsible at the system level. It is both an objective and reputational process. Does it really matter what tools are used if the work product passes the test, verification and validation criteria? Sloppy code is not unique to AI tools.
Software has gone many decades without the need of LLM assistance, I vote to tag “Ai” and “Non-Ai” assisted posts.
+1
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.
This is a rule that could actually be implemented and would help with the slop vs not-slop judgement call
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.
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
But wouldn’t that be far more useful? Many people seem to be looking for projects who don’t ever touch AI. Devs who use a [No AI] tag show that they follow the same agenda and most likely will not change their opinion on the next release.
No, because the absence of the tag indicates it’s free of AI
Or that the author didn’t know about the rule?
That’s why we have mods
Or…we could make it easier for them and make the use of the tag a conscious decision indicating something instead of relying on the mod’s voluntary work to correct for an implied meaning.
We could make it easier for mods by reporting articles to the mod.
Even better: We could mandate every post to put [Moderate This] at the end if they don’t follow the rules.
I agree with others who said AI tag for AI helped projects, no tags for normal projects.
I think you might need both for the tag bot to work properly but dunno.
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.
That way a certain subset of members could just drive-by downvote without getting themselves dirty.
Honestly. I was fully on board with this until you brought that up. Yea that just 180’d my opinion on if it should be tagged significantly.
I don’t want something to be tagged to be able to allow people to mass downvote it or hide it from sight, that’s not productive to anyone. I wanted the tag to be able to filter it out when I didn’t want to see it, but be able to see it if I felt I wanted to. Allowing for mass downvote on it will significantly hinder that.
I don’t want something to be tagged to be able to allow people to mass downvote
I commiserate, but they are going to get downvoted one way or another
Yea but a tag system will allow it to be seen from outside the community. a general requirement in the body of the post of disclosing if AI was used and how I think would go a long way better in the long run, and requires the person to have entered the post and read it first.
I think I’m leaning more towards that style instead. if something interests me I can join it read it and if its AI and I don’t want to see it I can go elsewhere, that requires people to put bare amount of effort instead of just seeing a [AI] tag from all[/active/hot] (idk what the actual lemmy endpoint is I use tess) and being like “oh ai downvote”
I get what you are saying. The downvoting doesn’t bother me a bit. You can downvote me in to the stone age and I wouldn’t give a shit. The curb stomping, anger, and animosity directed at anything AI tho, I think is out of hand. Every forum I’ve ever been in has a Rule 1. Few live up to that creed. I don’t say this from any moral high ground or superiority whatsoever, but I find it a character flaw not to be able to control yourself as an adult and think ‘Yeah I’m staunchly anti-AI. I have very, very strong opinions of it’s usage in any circumstance. However, there are 8.4 billion other people who might not share my disgust with AI so I’ll just skip on to the next thread.’ Agree to disagree in other words.
Having both an [AI] and a [not AI] tag allows immediate differentiation between a not AI post and a did not tag post.
But it’s annoying. Non AI should be default, AI has to be marked.
Edit: whoops, I thought this was a different community. Ignore me.
Yes, but no. [Not AI] tags would be just as much for your benefit as it would be for the poster’s. Until they become official tags in a mandatory field to post, someone who cuts corners is going to skip reading the rules and post without a tag. Or even if the onus were only on the “AI” posters, then they’ll miss or forget to check the box, select the tag, etc.Therefore, you’ll want to be able to sort by [Not AI], and then safely assume that anything else probably isn’t worth your time. Additionally, someone who uses AI and then intentionally abuses the [Not AI] tag could be assumed to have lied about anything else in their project, and should not be considered a trustworthy creator or worthwhile poster.I want the subreddit to be at least 95% NOT AI, but without completely excluding AI content (which must be tagged) and I don’t want to see everything tagged “[NOT AI]” because that’s genuinely obnoxious.
I understand that this is maybe not realistically achievable given the technical limitations within the Lemmy platform, but those limitations are not going to make such an implementation any less obnoxious, even if it is implemented that way for my benefit.
I would rather trust the mods and downvoters to clean up not-tagged or dishonestly Not-AI-tagged AI content, personally.
Yeah, I thought I was in one of the programming communities (we call them communities vs subreddits, which is why they’re prepended with “c/” instead of “r/”), which is why I was being so anal about creators and their values/meticulousness.
Obviously, for a community that’s often full of people posting “look what I found,” or “here’s my advice,” I was proposing far too much rigor that would absolutely kill the mood here.
Therefore, you’ll want to be able to sort by [Not AI]
No, I don’t. I’d rather have no tags at all and some AI posts in there than every post needing annoying tags in the title. Also not every post is related to a specific piece of software
Oh, I just noticed what community I was commenting in. Yes, you’re completely right, then. It’s more of a helpful little tag for those who are interested than a filter for different types of creators.
I’d assumed, obviously incorrectly and with the wrong context, that you were expressing anti-AI views, so I was trying to communicate how not fully standardizing (labeling) the data (posts) would affect you from your, once again, improperly assumed perspective.
Oh, I hold anti AI views :-) Just not so fierce that I want to be warned of every mention
Reasonable.
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.
the only way they could prevent that was to mandate that disclosure had to be in the post body somewhere and not the title, that way it only appears once someone opens the post. Mostly because some posts are visible from feeds other than subscribed which means that members would see it that are outside of the normal/average visitors here.
Honestly I think i would prefer that. Instead of requiring a tag, require AI disclosure on the project somewhere in the post body.
it is unreasonable to ask people to disclose something just so others can shit on them for it.
I totally dig what your saying. I’m not a downvoter period. In my short time here at Lemmy, AI assisted projects are going to get shit on one way or another. It’s unfortunate, but it is what it is. I think the narrative of this thread is to attempt to make things conducive to all users. I personally do not outright reject AI assisted projects. My main concern is if I spin up a container and it turns out to be a doughnut. AI assisted or no, unless you speak multi code languages fluently, you are taking a risk either way. You are placing your trust in the dev and the few that can read code.
you are taking a risk either way. You are placing your trust in the dev and the few that can read code.
There is definitely a trust issue and a need for ways of conveying and building trust in smaller software projects. I think a much better solution there would be discussions about the code and how it works that aren’t hostile interrogations with foregone conclusions in pursuit of a broader anti-AI agenda. If someone just put a lot of effort into making something the details of that process should be on their mind, it should be possible to make them more accessible to people and convey that there is non-artificial understanding behind the project. Automatic hostility and suspicion makes those kinds of conversations harder and less likely.
Automatic hostility and suspicion makes those kinds of conversations harder and less likely.
You’re preaching to the choir but I will give an amen.
That way a certain subset of members could just drive-by downvote without getting themselves dirty.
good lord, who does this? why waste the thumb energy? seems like a dick move… it’s easier to do no harm. crappy posts will die by themselves.
Again, I dig what you are saying, and I have a similar mind set. However, there is a strong faction of very vocal anti-AI anything, here at Lemmy. Both sides of the argument about AI coded projects or AI in general do have some valid points. However, in my estimation, and as I’ve said before, it’s 2026 and AI is here to stay. It is a good assumption that any project within the last 5 years or so has been at least AI assisted, if not outright vibe coded. Even updates to long standing projects now have AI involvement.
Yes, to me, the option to exercise your mouse wheel to glide over posts you are uninterested in, seems very obvious.
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.
Then failure to disclose can be condemned, for instance by temporary bans
