Ok, thank you for these constructive suggestions, I will see what I can do to improve the aesthetics and user experience of the website.

I understand and appreciate that feedback. I guess what I'm trying to ask is, what would make it look more "professional"? Blue colored buttons? Sharp edges? Less gray? A better font?

The design took a preference to functionality. However, any constructive feedback might be taken into account.

Your project was added because it matched the criteria for addition, that projects publicly state it won't be using any AI, in your case you mention "strictly forbidden".

To answer some of your other question, noailist.org has to rely on some trust with project owners that they are "to the best of their ability" enforcing their own AI policy. There is a lot of trust involved, from the project owner and from a project's contributors.

Some projects have been removed for not enforcing their AI policy, but they have been blatant and public about not following their own policy. Some projects the public have reviewed the submissions and found clues there were AI leveraged submissions, and the project was removed until it can follow its own public policy.

In your example, Sam might use LLM to find an answer, and then contribute some of their own hand written code. In this case this means Sam is still using AI and ignoring the societal cost of AI being too high ( https://noailist.org/why-no-ai/ ) by continuing to use AI at some point in the process.

If Sam admits to leveraging AI, you as the project owner may decide to bar Sam from further submissions unless they agree not to use AI anymore. That would be enforcing your AI policy to the best of your ability.

It would be dishonest if submissions were made with the use of AI without the project owner knowing about it especially having a public No-AI policy visible.

This may be a concern from project owners that contributors are submitting additions while leveraging AI but not being visible or honest about it. noailist.org would have to trust that project owners are attempting to find out if their contributors are leveraging AI or not... and being strict about enforcing their policy, and there are some tools and signs that help identify AI additions.

There might not be much leeway if noailist.org or the public is reviewing a project and the project owner had no idea that contributors were leveraging AI, the project would probably need to post a public statement to its contributors, and do more to enforce its strict No-AI policy. The project would probably be removed from noailist.org until there is more done to enforce the policy strictly.

To answer your other question, projects are not allowing any AI, even small (tiny?) usage of AI like your example. This is due to the societal cost of using AI being too high- as listed on https://noailist.org/why-no-ai

People are visiting the website, looking for projects. So if you'd like to have some people discover your older projects, then why not? The traffic is low now, but it is growing. As long as you state publicly your projects don't use AI, they will be added to the list if submitted.

There are some games and authors on https://noailist.org you might be interested in. https://noailist.org/books-and-authors/ - https://noailist.org/games/

Hi Arthur, after review of Tuta, they were found to still be using AI despite having a No-AI policy. Additionally, in github discussions, they plainly stated they still use AI. Therefore Tuta has thus been removed from noailist.org - Thanks for bringing this into view.

AI is GenAI, LLM, so to answer your questions, projects are avoiding all three. People are switching away from Google, not using AI chats, not using LMMs, etc, they are avoiding local models, etc. Some people are even turning off spell correction, etc. It's quite extensive.

That's really awesome, thanks for sharing!

uw! Which annealing did you learn? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annealing

Thanks for considering, if you do add I hope it provides some visitors your way