I think requiring AI disclosure like how !selfhosted@lemmy.world does is a good approach. Not all projects rely as heavily on LLMs as others.

I advocate for a disclosure, blanket removal feels like censorship; even vibe coded slop is a project that might generate interest if it was made to solve some problem or showcase a new frontier, nature of OSS will push the slop out of the project eventually.

When I say "slop", I refer to a huge codebase that does what it advertise but has no documentation on what it does internally and the primary poster cannot adequately explain what it does(code mudball esentially). but if its well documented and looks like it was put together with care, with rhyme and reason than I will defend against calling it slop

AI slop & AI code is very different. If its just pure vibe coded slop with no oversight or effort, then sure its just junk, remove it.

But a lot of experienced developers now use AI tooling to increase productivity, just because AI was used in the process should be consider it slop?

Depends on the definition. If we go by the definition a lot of users here seem to have, Linux itself would no longer be considered a FOSS project, which imo is completely ridiculous.

If we're talking about literally vibe coded from the ground up projects where the devs don't even know what the code inside looks like, yes maybe it should be removed or given a post tag once we have the feature.

Personally I prefer to keep a discussion going even with heavy AI coded projects, we're living in interesting times and I am convinced to keep an open mind about what engineering will look like going forward and what doors it might open for the FOSS community despite its flaws and negatives.

I'm gonna agree with others that there need to be standards not a blanket ban. I'd leave it up to the admins/mods what those are. Because getting too granular with it wold be hard to enforce. You guys pick something you feel is reasonable and will cut down on 0 effort slop but also allows you to enforce things without digging through the minutia of every post.

remove

Remove.

I think a disclosure at least in the title of the post should be required. But only if the software is known to be not slop at all. The problem with this approach is, that everyone has their own threshold and definition of what slop means, or are misinformed about the project. Overall I do not think it's a good idea to ban any Ai contributed or assisted project.

I vote to remove myself but I'd be fine with just having to state AI involvement

Remove them

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.

Remove them

Require an AI tag for anything written in part or in whole by AI.

Very hard question. I think, idk. For me Open Source isn't AI so i think remove it because it makes /c/opensource less attractive and worse but some things like about Craft i think it can be but i'am not moderator so i think ban it completely or most of it.

Rule 1 says Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology

I don't think any ai projects can claim to be that when their copyright status is debatable and the tooling is worse with how closed their training is.

Just make people disclose it in the title

I'm assuming the majority of posts are slop now, there are a couple of dedicated opensourceai subreddits, I would prefer such a thing existed here as well, with a blanket ban in this one.

Definitely need to remove them.

Require a tag but if someone wants to share something that solved a problem for them as an open source project they should be able to.

Remove, and suggest they go start an AI software community. We can't be monsters to people who might not know better.

I would say to just require them to be tagged, but the volume of them seems quite high. Might be better to just ban them and they can create a separate community.

I vote remove

Disclosure. If LLMs are used in service of open-source projects, then they are relevant, but clearly many in the community feel that to be negative, and therefore there should be a disclosure. Someone can make open source software using closed-source tooling already, so disallowing one form of tooling entirely is letting a moral reaction interfere with how we understand open source.

Linux would have to be removed from discussion, for example, if all LLM-contributed projects were to be disallowed. I don't see why rules should be made with explicit exceptions in mind, yet excluding Linux cuts out a huge portion of open source discussion.

We had Slop before AI. we just called "shit".

If a coder wants to shit out a project that never works and never patches it? I want them to notice the culture and know better.

If someone is learning, using the tools they have available, and shows a commitment to maintain their project? I want to see their work. I wanna see them get help from the community to be more literate in their own project, and in the full toolset they're using.

Most of these vibecoded submissions are the former. Thank you for removing the fecalware. If the community decides it needs to remove AI at all to keep this up? Eh, there's dbzer0.

+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.

1. 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.

2. 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.

Maybe a slopscore bot comment on any post that links to a repo?

I am going to go the other way and say the more, the merrier. I like to see new and interesting things that someone did to scratch an itch or solve a problem. I may not use it or agree with how they developed it or the license they chose, etc., but I still like seeing the posts about it.

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.

Remove them. If you can't ensure you own all the code written you can't make it open source. It's not yours to license.

I hope it's not allowed here

All these "remove" votes will only accomplish developers not disclosing their use of AI 🙄 It's very silly.

No, I think that there should not be a anti-AI rule. People can downvote those post if they are anti AI.

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.

Remove them!

Remove. Perhaps there's another community interested in AI hobby projects, but most of these seem like listening to someone's dreams, and are not very interesting.

Remove them. There could be another community for slop.

Not calling it slop might help get less biased answers.

Depends on how much effort is put into them and how useful they are

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..

Remove!

I'd like to keep them, but properly identified as such. As much as I don't prefer it, without it there would be projects that wouldn't be attempted.

They are also used by proper developers that know what they do and they just need specific parts done, which they'll review anyway.

So... Keep them. Identified, but keep them.

Remove them, let them create their own "AISoftware" community.

From my perspective "slopcode/vibecode" means entirely (or mostly) generated, which is different than a human-maintained project that includes bits of generated code. As a rule I'm very skeptical of the former and give the benefit of the doubt to the latter especially if it's an established project.

I'd be fine with removal or mandatory disclosure, but the latter would probably be easier to implement if there was a way to filter them out.

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.

• I think AI disclosure has to be a hard rule. Not done properly? Remove.
• I think there has to be a threshold of when to allow, otherwise we'll get (and are already) overwhelmed. For example, be X months old is an easy check that would filter out low-effort posting.

Besides these basic rules that I think are absolutely mandatory, I'm not sure how far to go. I'd want to say that the project needs to explain Free Software affinity or explain why it's posted on lemmy or something like that... But it's so easy to fake it with, the irony of it, AI texts.

In conclusion,

• Decision-wise, I wouldn't mind if the resolution is the full removal on AI-driven projects.
• Decision-wise, I would absolutely request a hard-ban if the lemmy text is AI-written.
• Decision-wise, I could accept if the rule is to accept some small sliver of AI posts that would come our way otherwise. Maybe some projects where AI assists in writing code, but does not replace the programmer. Maybe that is OK, if the project otherwise is "relevant to the open source ideology" (Rule 1 of this community).

EDIT: Also, something to think about is... community, not just code. For community health, it might be better to remove AI-driven projects entirely. Because we aren't just about code. We're also about continuing to exist long-term.

EDIT 2: I think codeberg actually did it better than my improvised thinking. I'd go with codeberg's rules: https://blog.codeberg.org/protecting-our-floss-commons-from-llms.html

Removed. AI is fundamentally anti open-source.

I don't think restricting what people can post is a good idea if you are looking to grow a community

I think it should allow AI coded projects.

AI code is a QA problem.

I've seen an opensource project (amule) being revived with AI, but there's extensive testing before the PRs are merged and the project seems to be working pretty fine.

Btw, I use AI a lot to configure my emacs init.el file :-D

Keep them but perhaps ask for #ai tags in titel, so those not wanting them can scroll past them.

All these new apps/software announcements will just get better and better, and if they are open source, they clearly fall in under this sub. At some point most users will have their own agents that can add or improve these new projects as they see fit, so let si oss be shown here as normal.

There are already super cool vibe coded open source software, and let's be honest, not all hooman software is great, so why not ban shitty hooman software/coders while we are at it? Oc not - oss is oss no matter how its made, even if the description sounds like an ai, or it's not always maintained.

In the near future, pure hooman coded open source will become more and more rare, so those interested in non-ai open source should start new sub's for their special wants instead of posing restrictions on what is becoming the new normal.

The question is how opensource is AI model which has been used for these creations? Are datasets available somewhere?

I've recently been pondering the future impact of AI on coding, while trying to filter out the current noise surrounding the issue (since all it does is muddy the waters). There's a lot of amateurish supposition to follow, but since you appear to be getting fewer thought out responses than "AI-bad-kill", take it with a pinch of salt.

There was a recent article on the open source software that props up the internet - (paraphrasing here) one of these repositories had (pre-AI) a user called Jin Yue or Jin Yin who made hundreds of useful pull requests, gained the trust of the repo maintainer and was eventually given admin privileges, only to surrepticiously merge malicious code when no one was looking (eventually discovered ~a month after the fact). I imagine that (likely) state-sponsored attempts like these will make more use of AI in the future for quicker turnaround, and that maintainers will also eventually use AI to quickly audit submitted code for security flaws.

As far as open source software channels are concerned, I imagine there will be a decent amount of low effort malicious software that makes heavy use of AI, submitted to these channels. In such an environment, whether or not users are permitted to candidly disclose AI usage without reprisal will likely make a huge difference, since honest disclosure would invite security-minded people to audit fault-prone AI-assisted code - something that malware distributers will try to avoid at all costs (thereby allowing a distinction that can be leveraged to form between the two).

Just my two cents.

I would say if the post itself is entirely AI generated I'm not interested. If it's a human post talking about a project created with AI I don't mind so much.

There's no such thing as "AI". Nothing to disclose.

Even if there were something to disclose, people don't know how much of their dependencies were computer generated. It's a purity test.

But all apps should be vetted for malware, etc.