As a review, I want to highlight the constructive feedback:

  • Overwhelming majority support some kind of tagging to identify AI projects and discussions
  • A small portion have mentioned a preference for a “Not AI” tag, specifically for project promo posts to make it an active choice
  • Too many tags would make it too complicated
  • A tag for AI topics as well as a tag for AI projects would be helpful
  • A variation of [AI] is preferred by folks who commented on tag naming
  • A tag is not enough, how they used AI is important
  • A tagged post should not have drive-by comments that don’t add to the conversation

For those who want “no AI ever”, that isn’t really possible. I’d recommend starting a new community, as so many critical pieces use AI in some capacity (linux, openssl, mariadb, curl, node, go, etc) that it would be a very different, hyper-specific community.

My recommendation based on what was said:

  • Three tags:
    • [CBH] - Code By Human - A promo post with a project that did not use AI in any capacity.
    • [AIP] - AI Project - A promo post with a project that used AI in development in any capacity. Disclosure is required for how it was used.
    • [AIT] - AI Topic - A discussion topic that includes AI. This is for items like “I want to customize a model to evaluate fish happiness based on CV captures” or “I’m having trouble configuring this MCP”

Posts that are not promotional and do not involve AI would not require a tag.

All promo posts would require a tag, making it an active decision to put [CBH] or [AIP], and would become kind of an extension of rule 7.

For [AIP], there would be a disclosure followup. I’m thinking something akin to the candor.md/ai-declaration.md approach, and this structure is based on that. The poster would need to identify which part of the process used AI:

  • Design - architecture, system design
  • Implementation - production code
  • Testing - writing tests, test plans, and QA.
  • Documentation - Docs, comments, readmes, changelogs
  • Review - Code review and pull request feedback
  • Deployment - CI/CD configuration.

And then the level (human only elements can be skipped):

  • Hint - AI suggested solution, human does the task.
  • Assisted - AI acts on part of a task, but a human handled the bulk.
  • Pair - About a 50/50 split of human made and generated.
  • Generated - a human prompted, the llm generated. (I see no substantial differentiation between Copilot and auto from ai-declaration.md for our use case, so I renamed to ‘generated’)

The requirement would be to call out only the parts which used AI, and the level of AI involvement for that process. So lets say there was an post tagged [AIP], and lets also assume there was a working automod to make this comment:

It looks like you’ve posted a project with the [AIP] tag.

Please reply to this comment with your AI Disclosure as described in the [AI RULES POST] (this will be a link), required for all [AIP] posts.

Identify which parts of the process involved AI (Design, Implementation, Testing, Documentation, Review, Deployment) and the level of AI involvement (hint, assist, pair, generated). See the [AI RULES POST] for details. Additional notes on use are welcomed if you’d like to provide them.

The [AI Rules Post] would contain the details above, just like the expanded rules post/explanations.

Failure to provide a disclosure after using the tag would mean removing the post. It could be locked, but I would have to assume the majority of the spam-type postings that happened to make it past the rule 7 criteria are the ones who will not provide the requested disclosure. I think it makes for a good filter this way, but please comment if you think otherwise.

In terms of timing, I’d say an hour should be more than enough time to provide a reply. If there isn’t one, then the post should be reported so it could be removed. Removals, as always, will be by a person, so they will be at some point after the hour limit.

I’ll likely make a crappy little bot in python to handle the tag check, check post_id to make sure it hasn’t already replied (this way if it gets edited in it will still comment) specifically for the [AIP] tag only. It won’t do a single thing otherwise. If you know of an existing (and good) bot for this, please share, or be subjected to the roughly 50 lines of code I wrote this morning. If I do use mine, I’ll put it up on codeberg so everyone can see exactly what its doing… and then get mad and tell me there is a better way.

Speaking of, I’ve made a repo for /c/selfhosted, currently with just the detailed rules post. I’ll put other information there later, such as the AI rules post, the comment bot (if applicable), etc. This will also go into the sidebar once I’ve had time to update the README and other details.

Please respond with your questions, comments, and criticisms

  • mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    3·
    8 小时前

    I think this is a very well thought out approach to handling it. I can’t personally think of any better solutions, at least. I probably would have chosen some different phrasing for the tags, (CBH feels… Disconnected? I’d probably go with something like “No AI” or “AI-Free” instead), but that’s just a matter of personal diction. Outright banning posts about projects that use AI likely isn’t going to be feasible in the long run, and I think that simple declaration requirements will go a long way towards encouraging people to actually disclose their usage.

    If you outright ban it, people will simply hide their usage. It feels like it’s akin to the US War On DrugsTM in that way. If you allow it and simply require responsible disclosure, more people will be inclined to be upfront about it. And that allows projects to be more accurately audited and vetted. The same way the war on drugs consolidated power to organized gangs (by making them the only ones capable of producing and transporting illegal drugs at scale), an outright ban on AI would only encourage people to hide their usage.

    One potential way I see people trying to skirt the rules regarding self-promos is via proxy/strawman accounts. It would be trivial for me to spin up a dummy account and post my own project as an “I found this cool project but don’t have to disclose my AI use because I didn’t make it” post. I don’t personally have any projects in the works to post about, but I can easily see someone using it to try and skirt the disclosure requirements. Especially when we have seen situations like the (now infamous) Huntarr debacle, where the vibe-coder dev was actively avoiding AI disclosures. Because they knew it would tank the project’s popularity if people knew it was vibe coded.

    I’m not sure if there is a good solution for this potential issue, except maybe to limit posts by new users. But even that is trivial to bypass. If you limit them based on account age, simply making a few strawman accounts and waiting for them to age is easy. Hell, I already have a few old throwaway accounts that I could swap over to whenever I want, and I’m not even planning anything nefarious.

    There are similar problems with restricting users based on post/comment count, as that will likely stifle discussion from new users who are trying to be active in the community. One of the more frustrating parts about Reddit was that many of the most popular subs banned posts from users who were below a certain post karma threshold or who didn’t have enough previous posts. It created a catch-22 where you needed to have a few popular posts before you were allowed to make any posts. So there were people posting on random niche subs, simply for karma farming before they could then post on the larger subs. And if I was a vibe coder without scruples who is already looking to skirt the rules, it would be trivial for me to spin up an LLM and let it make a few comments before I start using it as a dummy account.

    This may end up being a non-issue in the grand scheme of things. But I figured I’d mention it, because I genuinely don’t see a good solution for patching the big glaring hole in the self-promo rule. You’re absolutely correct that requiring disclosure for every post is unrealistic, because lots of users who post projects here aren’t the devs. They just stumbled across a cool project and wanted to share it, and they have no realistic way of knowing if the project uses AI. And if you restrict promo posts to only devs, you’ll only get posts from the people who fall into the (likely very small) overlapping section on the “is a Lemmy user” and “makes projects” Venn diagram. Lemmy is already a small community in the grand scheme of things. And restricting promo posts to only the people actively developing the projects would make it feel even smaller.

    If I do use mine, I’ll put it up on codeberg so everyone can see exactly what its doing… and then get mad and tell me there is a better way.

    Poe’s Law is always in effect. The best way to get an answer on the internet is not to ask a question; it is to post an incorrect answer, because people will go out of their way to correct you.