We’ve been getting a lot of AI coded submissions recently, as well as lots of reports asking to remove them.
Should we remove these posts, or not?
No, I think that there should not be a anti-AI rule. People can downvote those post if they are anti AI.
Idk if zero tolerance is the way to go, but conceptually at least allowing things with “significant” AI usage is kind of horrifying to me. The entire rest of the fucking world is completely uncritically embracing it so i see no reason why places like these have to allow it as well, i think it should be obvious that we want some communities that reject AI usage so we have control groups and safe havens for the future…
I think they should be allowed if they have actual effort and maintaining put into them, but that’s usually the problem. Most LLM projects get abandoned very fast.
This is a major difference with a project like Linux. Even if they start using slop code there, you know that they’re not going to suddenly abandon it.
Maybe we need to think out of the box, and instead of an LLM tag, we need a tag like how long the repo has existed which can be automatically checked by a bot.
Remove them
Just make people disclose it in the title
Minimum age requirement and activity requirement. If it was built all in one go it’s more likely to be abandoned and full of problems and just pollute the landscape. If it’s been under development with multiple commits over a time-span of months or a year or more it’s more likely to be higher quality, have human in the loop somewhere, continue development, patches, etc. Linux itself for example would be exempted because it has a significant age, significant recurring activity in development, multiple human developers, etc.
I do think exceptions on a case by case basis for clever simple programs that address a not previously addressed need might be fine as well. I really think there needs to be a little discretion for mod action.
What a lot of people hate and I do as well are these “look daddy I can ‘code’ too” baby’s first/second/etc vibecoded programs that people proudly toss out there without any real thought beyond pride they told an LLM to make something and it did it. Those rarely add much value, often are redundant with one another (why reinvent the wheel again and again?), and would tend to be lower quality and end up just being so much spam that makes it harder to understand what’s worthwhile.
I completely agree. It can be reworded as developer or software reputation
Remove them
+1 to remove them. 99% of those AI projects will go unmaintained and abandoned after a year, and their use of AI more often than not impedes socialist efforts due to directly or indirectly supporting fascists tech companies.
-
Simply using an AI that’s run on a corporate data centers encourages the construction of yet more data centers, with all of the environmental/climate negatives they bring, as well as local harms they induce on the people living near them, such as increased electricity rates.
-
Using corporate AI directly helps the financial situations of those giant corporations (by boosting usage/user numbers, they are able to attract more investment capital), most of which are ran by right-wing CEOs who are more than willing to collaborate with and fund fascist governments to ensure that they are not regulated in search of both maximum profits. Some of these companies, such as Nvidia, Palantir and Oracle, genuinely appear to be seeking to use these tools for what would previously be considered crackpot conspiracy theory levels of public control and surveillance.
AI is a direct result of mass-surveillance. I’ll repost what I wrote to a previous user:
Something you’re not acknowledging is that this technology stems from surveillance-capitalism and the surveillance-state. Google et al were financed to solve the needs of the state. Google search for consumers was a by-product from the state’s need and desire to make sense of their mass-surveillance programs.
Surveillance-capitalism operates under complete deception. Pokemon Go players didn’t know they were collecting data for autonomous-murder-drones.
Solving Google’s Captchas was unpaid labour: you were creating data for Google’s OCR program and now you’re creating data for autonomous cars or whatever their investors want you to toil on next.
Out of all this theft, unpaid labour and intrusive surveillance what does the working class get? Housing costs are increasing. Food costs are increasing. Poverty is increasing. What is AI going to do for us? It’s not building houses. It’s not harvesting crops. It’s not giving the working class any material benefit, but is further degrading living conditions. Enjoy the endless drone of a data-center! Enjoy breathing the fumes of gas-turbines! Enjoy talking to chatbots and never a human!
AI is deployed as a barrier between the working class and businesses. AI is deployed to decrease labour costs. AI is deployed to kill. The fact you can create text, images, videos and audios that mimic reality only means more surveillance on the working class because digital-signals can be faked absolutely and are now suspect by default.
You can’t eat what AI creates–it is completely immaterial, but it is being used to commit genocide. I’m sure that warms the cockles of the hearts in all of us.
I do not think AI use should be condoned.
That seems to me to be just more justification for why we should use it. We contributed to creating it, indirectly, so we should benefit from it’s creation. Admittedly simple usage isn’t sufficient, and all companies that offer LLM services should be heavily taxed, with that revenue redistributed to the populace, but that’s a different argument.
-
If it’s not open source, remove them.
If they’re open source then the people posting them are in the right place.
A policy like what’s being suggested in the op will only be walked back in a few months.
E: also disclosure is a stupid requirement. All it does is give people something to fight over and there’s no industry accepted process for evaluating ai code as opposed to human written code, so disclosure doesnt even serve a useful purpose. It’s literally just giving people something to argue about when the hypothetical post is ostensibly about the software or what it accomplishes.
There needs to be an actual framework for what you’re excluding and why. The majority of developers use LLMs to some degree, an outright ban is unrealistic and motivated by emotion not logic.
I’d suggest limiting submissions of brand new projects with no history and nothing to indicate they’re going to be maintained going forward. There also needs to be some proof the maintainer actually understands how their own project works but that’s far more difficult to prove.
If you’ve been working on a project for 6 months and plan to continue doing so then I’m happy to learn about it regardless of whether AI was used in the process or not.
I guess it depends on what we mean by “using an LLM”. I’m definitely more conservative than most but for me I draw the line at permitting an LLM to author code; while not ideal I can accept using it has a fuzzer and static analysis tool.
The community will have to agree to what its pain tolerance is and enforce that position.
I vote to remove myself but I’d be fine with just having to state AI involvement
All these “remove” votes will only accomplish developers not disclosing their use of AI 🙄 It’s very silly.
I’m not anti-AI but would caution you to see what has been done to communities like /r/selfhosted after the vibe coders found it. Every other post is about a project that has severe memory leaks, over engineered code for simple tasks, and significant security risks especially if someone stupidly opens it up to the internet. These people are putting others in danger with their ignorance even if they think they are ‘helping’. Maybe disclosures will work fine for a smaller forum like this, but elsewhere, the sheer volume makes it unmanageable.
Remove!
It’s really telling how AI-assisted software development is simply divided into black and white, as if there were no in-between. Apparently, although there is.
