Yup, I’m posting another this week. Sorry.
This week I’m hoping we can wrangle a solution around AI and our selfhosted community. There are plenty of strong opinions (both pro and con), but one thing is for certain - there needs to be better disclosure in promo posts. Two options (that aren’t mutually exclusive):
- Any posts of an AI focused, AI Developed, etc software gets an [AI] tag. No, a [Not-AI] tag is not needed to accomplish this, thats kind of a “non-golfer” sort of tag.
- Comment requiring an AI disclosure response to every promo post, if its not detailed in the post itself. Specifics (generating docs for commands, translation, whole-boat vibe-coded this app, etc) would be requested.
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).
The tag [AI] would make it easy to filter out (or search for, if that’s your thing), but there is a wildly different degree of AI use out there, and from the posts with a positive score, its usually due to responsible AI use (translations, a snippet they had to do something obscure with, available to use with AI but doesn’t require it, whatever), which is why I think the disclosure has a place as a benefit to everyone.
Please provide any input or alternative options on this, and I can then put it to a vote like the last one. Comments seem to be the best approach without involving something off-site, but if you have a better idea/option, please share.
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.
Actually might be easier to do [AIless]
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.
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.
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”.
The first bullet is, the other two are covered in the current rule 7 that just went live this week.
While part of promo, this is just about its own item here. In part because it could be something like “I wrote some of this script, got some ai help to talk to this closed device, here’s what I’m using” which doesn’t really fit promo, but still garners a lot of negative attention and comments.
I’m a bit hopeful this one would be of slightly broader benefit than just the straight up promo posts (which has a good amount of requirements now to filter out the garbage, though it does put some delays on f/loss projects that are well intentioned).
Just found the other rule post. Looks great!
Thanks for grappling with this @curbstickle@anarchist.nexus
+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.
This sounds like a review / gating problem. Getting people to self filter / self gate is never going to work, and if it does it will work probably on the wrong people.
That being said, it should be okay for users to call out an obvious grift, or a “nonsense repo” that’s actually pure slop.
Especially if the disclosure is blatantly a lie, absolutely. I’d also say if you see any indicators that they are lying in the disclosure, its still worthy of reporting - but I would say report and separately message the “why”, to limit visibility of seeing those indicators.
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
No, but with a rule in place like these, its clearly out of place and can be removed. I don’t harbor any delusions about not seeing those sort of comments.
Would be nice though. And I like being nice.
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.
I’m not consistent about it yet, but because of exactly this, I’m trying to differentiate the two when I talk.
Responsible automation? I use ML or machine learning.
The grift consuming the world? A Tech Bro? “AI”
I think one of the saddest things is the conflation between the two, like you can’t even talk about one without invoking the other. Or it opening up that whole ethical debate, when you’re just talking about, like, a 100M transcription model trained by one research in some university on a potato.
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).
The drive by down voting doesn’t bother me at all. I sense that it does intimidate quite a few here. To me it’s pretty darn silly because it’s no longer a filtration mechanism as it was once intended, and now has become a way to vent displeasure, angst, and inner turmoil. However, it is what it is. I can deal with that with ease.
The curb stomping is really the issue to me. I realize there are 8.4 billion other people on this planet and few will align with all of my core beliefs and convictions, which I see as a positive; yaaay diversity! I’m willing to give the space to agree-to-disagree and still be cordial and supportive where it’s needed. (eg: the *arr stack) All I want to do is hang out with selfhosters, learn from them, and share with others what little knowledge I’ve gained along the way. I have no other agenda.
I agree with the [AI] tag. I’m not really sure why that would trigger someone more than [SOLVED], and I agree with the 30 days in the hole. Two weeks would have sufficed imho, but 30 is fine.
Thanks @curbstickle@anarchist.nexus
I agree, there’s valid points on both sides, let’s be civil and request posts are tagged accordingly so that they can be filtered.
Respectful coexistance, is the path forward.
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.
Unfortunately the comments I’ve seen and the reports I get would disagree. Even on older accounts that post and comment plenty.
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.
Oh I’m sure it will be. I don’t know if its a concern though - TBD I suppose.
TBD indeed. But it will effectively ‘downrank’ posts and their visibility, maybe into the negative vote range. I’ve seen highly negative scores across the board in more machine-learning focused subs, and that’s without a tag that catches the eye so easily.
I think even modifying the acronym could make a difference, though (as I ninja edited).
I do like the idea of a different tag, still easy to filter but less of a target like the ai generated communities out there.
For what it’s worth, I asked my self-hosted LLM (MiMo 2.5, no network access outside my desktop), and it came with [AIT] (AI-Topic).
…I think that’s my favorite so far. [AIP] would work too.
I feel like that “obfuscates” the tag enough to blunt impulse downvotes in /new and feeds, without being deceptive or anything.
Actually both are pretty good - AIT for it as a more discussion oriented, AIP for a project post.
I like it, I think something like that would be a great idea
Oh, both! Yeah. I didn’t even think of that, but [AIT]/[AIP] as separate tags makes a lot of sense.
I’d like being able to filter by either, actually.
I guess two tags runs the risk of “rules too complex for some to follow,” but that’s more of a moderation load question. I have no say in that, heh.
Yeah. Just not sure what it should be, heh.
I will say, if it still has “AI” in the tag (like [LAI] or whatever), it would play nicer with keyword filters.
Disagree. Just deal with people that aren’t contributing in a positive manner like normal. It’s easy to identify posts that are dealing with AI and it’s easy to ignore them.
It is.
But people don’t do that. They send in a whole bunch of reports, sometimes multiple with the reason changing to the same variation.
So something is needed here.
Alternative: make a separate “selfhosted-ai” community for the sloperators.
Just to point out a few projects that allow AI contributions:
- Firefox
- NodeJS
- Chromium
- curl
- Go
- InfluxDB
- MariaDB
- Prometheus
- Linux
- openSSL
- Blender
- Mattermost
- Caddy
If you want all projects related to AI in a different community, it may be easier for you to start “selfhosted_without_ai” or something.
Indeed, AI is a tool, and the human should be an expert who verify its work. What I don’t like are posts about apps that are completely vibe-coded without any thought put into them, which pose dangerous security risks.
Thats the reasoning behind the disclosure bit, I agree its a tool, and great when used correctly.
But if you try and use a hammer like a drill, you’re gonna have a bad time.
It is not ‘just a tool.’ It is not “great.” Too many people focus on how it is used and not how it is created, how it affects us, and how it affects the world.
I’m just going to shortcut this and say two things:
-
I can guarantee the overwhelming majority (if not all) of your issues have nothing to actually do with LLMs and everything to do with corporations. Power use, data center buildouts, market impact, whatever - none it is an an llm problem. LLMs are just another piece of software, thats all.
-
Your personal opinion on this, as well as mine, does not change the overall conversation here. So how about we just stick to the topic at hand?
-
Alternative: make a separate “selfhosted-ai” community for the sloperators.
this comment is a perfect example of what @curbstickle@anarchist.nexus is trying to eliminate/prevent.
Knee-jerk “noise”!
There already are.
I’d argue that Lemmy and piefed need a “sub community” or community taxonomy structure, but that’s kinda out of scope here.
