Using words like "prejudice" and "discriminate" implies a moral dimension that I don't think applies here. There's nothing inherently immoral about disapproving of AI use or not wanting to unwittingly consume AI-generated content.

Yep, that'll be unpopular. But I also agree: disclose your toolchains.

Most of the time this is probably going to be inferable from a public repository: there will be "dotfiles" and similar IDE and CI configuration files committed. Various scripts for testing and bootstrapping the development environment will tell you if the developer's OS.

Upvoted for a truly unpopular opinion. "Devs should disclose whether or they used a keyboard or a typewriter" defeats the purpose of anti-ai sentiment, which I believe is your intention. Good job, bozo.

You're being intentionally obtuse. This is less an unpopular opinion and more a strawman that you can dominate. Gen AI end product is often low quality, hallucination prone, expensive and unreliable. Using AI to code also exponentially raises the likelihood that you do not fully understand "your" code and thus limited in improving it. AI hate us not a random "prejudice" or arbitrary "discrimination" but an evaluation of the final product and the limitations of the tool that made it.

It's normal to continue arguments in your head when your upset, but those thoughts generally shouldn't turn into posts.

Very unpopular opinion.

The trouble with AI is it allows a gaming of consumers (dropping shovelwear, using review farms to boost it, cashing out, repeat) which reduces the overall quality of product on the market.

An AI flag warns people of this risk, and helps mitigate this harm.

I won't go into the dubious legal status of AI content, but that is also a risk the consumer should be aware of.

What about a carpenter who uses Parkside or Ryobi power tools? Why would I buy a kitchen table from a guy who uses interior tools? I think a carpenter should use something nicer like Makita tools.

I had to upvote because both the title and text do qualify as unpopular by several standards. I suspect that it's rage bait rather than an actual opinion though.

Just in case it isn't bait, and is just unnecessarily aggressively worded, I agree with the underlying concept. I don't think it would apply to OS levels just because it's not relevant to the end user. No closed source os is going to be fully ethical. No corporate os can be either, imo, though I'm not as confident that a non profit is or isn't at the same risk of bad behavior.

But yeah, we should all have some degree of information about fundamental decisions in the process of what we use. How much detail, what details, and who is obligated legally is the real difficulty. You make it too much of a pain in the ass, and bye-bye big segments of the FOSS dev community.

However, I think trying to pin it on the fact of AI existing and being treated as a bad thing is spurious thinking. That's because there are already people that will object to and refuse to use software that's significantly dependent on apple or Microsoft. Not a ton of people, but they've existed for decades. Others will refuse to use anything closed source. People do what you're suggesting as well. Very, very rarely but some developers are quite open about some details of their hardware, and plenty will gladly talk about their os of choice and why they chose it.

So trying to shoehorn it into a false equivalency with ai doesn't hold water even with that false equivalency in play. Supervising a generative llm or letting the llm do everything, vs running an os on hardware just aren't the same thing at all.

Most people think that someone should have to disclose if they're a sex offender, but why stop there? I think everyone should have to disclose whether or not they've ever done it missionary or doggy style.

*wanking gesture*

Yep, this is unpopular, so get an upvote.