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: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
No spam.
Posts here are to be centered around self-hosting. Please ensure it is clear in your post how it relates to self-hosting.
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or git here. Just post the link for folks to click.
Submission headline should match the article title.
No trolling.
Promotion posts require your active participation in selfhosting or related communities, or the post will be removed. No more than 10% of your posts or comments may be self-promotional, or your post will be removed. F/LOSS Exception: If your post is about a project that is completely open source & can be self-hosted in full without payment, and your account is at least 30 days old, your post is exempt from this rule as long as you continue to engage in comments.
Resources:
Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.
Questions? DM the mods!
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.
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.
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 understand that people have concerns, but those concerns are only relevant if they come from a maintainer or repo owner point of view. There is an entire spectrum of how AI is used in code, and it's not a simple yes or no thing. I am for example completely against vibe coding as it's just a risk and liability in the long run. However, to use AI to brainstorm, get suggestions, discuss architecture, learn with examples, and assist basically like someone else is sitting next to you while you code yourself... that is something completely different, and results in a completely different outcome.
In the end, it depends on can the person at the steering wheel take full ownership and accountability of the code they produced, with or without AI.
I understand that people have concerns, but those concerns are only relevant if they come from a maintainer or repo owner point of view.
This just isn't true. Whether I'm a developer or not, I have to deal with the security issues that come with running the code. I have to deal with the bugs that come from it. I have to decide if I'm willing to support practices I may consider unethical used to produce the software, especially if I'm considering donating to the project. I don't need to be a topic expert to understand that AI code is prone to bugs and security vulnerabilities, nor do I need to be one to consider the massive ecological damage and copyright violation required to train the plagiarism machine.
However, to use AI to brainstorm, get suggestions, discuss architecture, learn with examples, and assist basically like someone else is sitting next to you while you code yourself... that is something completely different, and results in a completely different outcome.
Generally, people take the most issue with using it to actually generate code in any capacity. There are purists who might insist you not even touch AI, but I think most draw the line at including code or graphics not written by a human.
In the end, it depends on can the person at the steering wheel take full ownership and accountability of the code they produced, with or without AI.
If we presume ethically neutral tools, sure, but the massive damage to ecosystems and towns that comes with training, using, and powering AI are seen by many as outweighing the utility they're able to provide.
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.
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:
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.
Much participated on the advice!
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.
@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.
Yes, it should. Just make it [slop] vs. no tag. Actual content shouldn't define itself by the abscence of shit.
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, 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.
Software has gone many decades without the need of LLM assistance, I vote to tag “Ai” and “Non-Ai” assisted posts.
+1
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.
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.
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
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.
I agree with others who said AI tag for AI helped projects, no tags for normal projects.
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.
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.
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 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?
I am as well.
Why's that?
Yes. They should be told to sit in the corner with a big cone shaped hat on like the old days.
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.
I'd prefer a [HUMAN] tag for projects without A.I. But yes, tags would be welcome.