Selfhosted

I think tags are a good idea. I would change the tag to [AI / LLM], and maybe some subtags like [chatbot], [image processing], etc. AI is here to stay, or a least until the US realize the hole under their entire economy (Or both in worst case scenerio) , so regulation is a good solution to this. (In my humble opinion)

I don't have a problem with people talking about different open source technologies.

But I do have a problem with this comm promoting the grift that "AI" exists.

What exactly is this post about? Chat bots? Image/video processing? Content generation?

None of this stuff is "AI". Please don't label it as such. It's grifter nonsense.

Not a fan of a tag, since it's not transparent enough. Sounds like every minor use of AI would warrant a tag, which seems past the point.

The disclosure comment I feel works well. People that care about if/how AI was used can check it to get a proper impression of the scale of and workflow for AI usage, and those who don't care can ignore it.

I don't have a problem with AI. I have a problem with vibe-coded apps released as a one-shot and then never maintained or supported. That's slop.

I also have a problem with the trace apps (lifttrace, nutritrace, etc.) because while they're entirely vibe-coded, they are actively developed, but they're posted here by a brand promotion account that doesn't otherwise contribute to the community. If there's any "x% self-ptomotion" threshold, they fail it, because it's 100% self-promotion.

I know I also reported another post as slop recently but I don't remember what it was.

+1

Home-AI oriented channels like Reddit's localllama are filled with self promotion garbage, and more will trickle here over time.. I'm not even against self promo or heavy coding assistance, but 9-times-out-of-10, the linked repo is nonsense, or straight-up fraudulent. And being obviously vibe-coded is a common tell.

Good to get ahead of this.

Also, +1 on supressing driveby insults. If the post is tagged up front, there's no need. That being said, it should be okay for users to call out an obvious grift, or a "nonsense repo" that's actually pure slop.

I would still prefer an additional [Non-AI] tag. Even if people are arguing against it - it is not same omitting an [AI] tag and consciously saying "I never used and never will use AI". And the latter is the thing most users who want the AI-tag are looking for.

I want a community where people can use AI to help build a tool and be able to post about it here. But unfortunately, I’m just not seeing that. The AI-generated apps seem to be coupled to a drive-by, AI generated post (and comment replies) all full of em dashes and the standard Claude slop language.

So, yes, mandate an AI tag. Hold posters to it and remove violators, because it seems to always be the same class of “contributors” that are cosplaying as software developers.

Not sure if your rule changes are touching this, but the worst offenders I don’t want to see here are:

• posting and commenting text written entirely by AI
• not open sourcing or giving any visibility into their code
• adopting a paid model

The people doing that remind me of the people who would approach me 20 years ago saying “hey I have an idea for an app I want you to build and I’ll give you 5% of my company. It’s like Facebook for dogs, but I need you to sign an NDA before I say any more”.

Self hosted AI is such an oxymoron.

Yep. It is a time-suck to see an interesting new project only to check it out and find out it's AI slop. For some apps, it doesn't bother me... They may not require the access or stability of critical apps. Other times, I just can't trust a slop app, and it would be very helpful to know which it is in advance.

I think this should be a thing. At the same time, I would also want something similar for funding or platforming fascists, but that is unlikely to end up being done. I think a simple tag, the [AI] one would work, is the best current solution. I think extra detail in the post is a good thing to do, for example AI assisted documentation, AI assisted bug finding, AI assisted vibe coding. They are all different and have different effects on the product and community. If someone uses AI to find bugs in their own code I am all for it, that is a great use if it. If they use AI to write their login system I am not keen at all given the likelihood of intense security issues and the low likelihood that they will ever fix it.

I really is like having the disclosure comment pinned for a more nuanced explanation of what, if any, AI went into a project or post. I think just a tag can't capture the levels of AI use.

I'm personally a never-genAI, but, unless we go No AI as a community, I don't think it makes sense to group all projects that touch AI for documentation with all that use it for testing with all that completely let the AI generate all their code, etc. And I don't think setting a threshold for which get tagged makes sense either. Basically, a tag is misleading no matter how it's implemented.

I will say that having disclosure and/or tagging would mean that comments that just say "slop" or "fuck ai" or whatever would be off topic at that point, that information is already provided, so its just noise (and sometimes pretty uncivil - I've been light on that for now due to the need for a rule on this).

good idea

it won't solve the "noise" problem though. I was relatively active on !imageai@sh.itjust.works and we were constantly nagged by sloppies even though the community is clearly dedicated to generativeArt

I like the AI tag idea. I'm someone who has what I'd call a noderate approach to AI, not an AI bro but any means but I'm also okay with some things built with AI if they're done with care. If others don't want to see it, fine, then that's what a tag could be useful with. However the fuck AI/slop comments on something that admits to being AI is annoying to me. (We know it's AI, they literally said it is).

If it becomes too much content, then yes would be okay with bi-forcating the community, buy only after it becomes a problem.

If you don't delineate, it will simply be easier to tag everything ai as there was ai involved somewhere and you're less likely to need to defend yourself.

My 2 cents are that the issue is promotion not AI, if people started promoting stuff made without AI that would still be spam.

From the rules:

F/LOSS Exception: If your post is about a project that is completely open source & can be self-hosted in full without payment, your post is exempt from the 10% requirement. The exception does not exempt you from the account age requirement.

I would propose making this the requirement and not an exception, forbid all promotion of closed source, and allow the 10% requirement for open source projects.

Thanks for grappling with this @curbstickle@anarchist.nexus

Also:

Anything with an [AI] tag, first thing in the title, will have a drive-by downvote issue.

Not sure how to deal with that, or if its even a concern.

EDIT:

Maybe it should be something else that's not such a loaded keyword?

[ML] for Machine Learning? [SAI]? [LAI]?

I've been messing with 'AI' for a decade, and even I hate what the term has come to represent.

Yes this is needed. Thank you for the proposal here.

I would suggest that this probably needs to be really explicit about any AI involvement, i.e. a minimum if AI is used in any capacity in the coding process, it should require the tag. And ideally an explanation if it was used in other parts of the process.

That last post that came up said they used AI 'for code review only'. In my mind even that deserves the tag, because these terms are so easy to work around. Someone can 'code up' the following:

#include <studio.h> int main(void) { printf("Program that does X thing";) }

(yes, I know the main arguments are not written correctly. You get the point)

and then have the AI reviewer 'fix' their code by doing all the actual work. A strict requirement for this tag, for any AI involvement in the creation of the code seems like the key. The code part is going to be where the security issues crop up, and where it's really important to know who or what is producing the code you're about to run on your home server.

I think we're fairly used to a world where people use templates for their websites, documentation, etc. AI use there bothers me less, but an honest disclaimer saying what the AI did would sure go a long way to reducing the hate comments. I think people will still drive-by downvote, but that can't (and IMO really shouldn't be) prevented. But without a rule, people aren't going to be honest.

The scary part is just how emboldened people feel nowadays to just entirely use an AI for all the coding, documentation, website, and then not even put their name on the project. These to me feel like borderline state actor trojan horses disguised as open-source projects.

Legitimate open source developers can spend years writing code to do something very sinplle but useful, and for them to be drowned out by a bunch of completely AI driven, slop posts really bothers me.