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?
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.
Please do! It’s always my first question when reading new projects.
Absolutely.
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.
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.
I ran into someone who was adamant he wouldn’t use anything that touched AI.
I showed him how the fediverse app he was using to tell me that he wouldnt use AI had AI involvement.
He’s still using it.
Just ban AI already
This is a better plan.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Reasonable.
I would support those tags. Does Lemmy support some equivalent of post flairs that can be filtered?
Good question - and that’s another problem. Not sure - can’t see any in Voyager. Can you see any on your end?
I did a little digging, and apparently there is a plugin for Lemmy for flairs. https://github.com/basedcount/flair/blob/main/README.md. Again, I have no experience standing up a Lemmy instance nor do I know how hard that would be to implement if that option was favored.
I’ve never seen it on the official web app. I suspect that, if they existed, I would’ve seen them used by now.
Yes please.
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.
yes.
always yes.
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.
- What is your experience in [subject matter of app]?
- What is your experience in software development?
- What percentage of the code for this app was written by AI? What percent was written by you?
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 don’t disagree. Perhaps tags at the end of post titles rather than the beginning, or tags in the body of the post? I’m not sure what people use to filter these things and how those different options would effect usability.
I feel like this could lead to discrimination and prejudice against ai users. It should have been implemented years ago.
To clarify…you 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.
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.
In addition to this, could we potentially make this a badge as well?
https://brainmade.org/That one is good, but it doesn’t have strict licensing restrictions like the SciActive one. Basically you have to follow the policy with the SciActive one, or you lose the license to use the seal.
Also, the SciActive one is specifically for software projects and covers the full software project explicitly.
Not that the Brain Made one is bad, it just fits a different use case (art, poetry, etc).
Yes. Anything made, posted, modified, or output by AI should be tagged as such, always, without exception.
Including immich, home assistant, syncthing, docker…
Right?
Yes.
