You seem to not understand something here. Even if we take your points at face value, which they are quite off, but regardless, lets jump back a few more years to the computer / phones / the calculator. People were saying the same thing about being able to do complex or even basic math. Guess what? I haven't needed the ability to do any of that Math in my head for atleast 20 years now. "You wont always have a calculator!" yes, I have always had one since then.

Its the same with most of your points, you're afraid that people will forget how to code? If the LLMs can do the coding in your place well enough for you to forget it, obviously it can do well enough to where you can shift your focus and skill set to something else that works alongside the LLMs.

If you were actually in the professional world where people are using and learning alongside these new tools, you wouldn't be so dismissive about it.

At a bare minimum, it would be nice for users to tag their projects accordingly. You could, with a glance, realize there wouldn't be a point in investing your time/energy into a project that the creator had less investment in, themselves.

yeah, I've since seen the suggestion for enforced tagging in the top comment, and I agree that it could be a good solution for allowing users to decide for themselves if they want to engage

Never in my life have I wanted to read about or use an AI slop project.

One? I've received three. It seems you have to dumb down your responses, and add some intentional typos if you don't want the mob after you lately.

i'm so curious what the argument against banning AI slop would even be, lmao

what makes you think it would become an unused backwater? The people most vocally anti-AI are also those most likely to actually engage with places like this. And there's plenty of people here who support banning AI slop on the community so clearly there'd still be people left after you leave.

Thanks for sharing this. Maybe correct tagging could be useful. Makes it easier to ignore but not overly heavy and possibly toxic.

If i am just posting these projects i found which i think are interesting (which i did a lot of). i am now suppose to spend more of my spare time researching if they include AI? I am pretty sure i won't be able to know most of the time .

There are not a a lot of projects i think people will be interested enough to do a "high effort evaluation". if anyone is that interested he can just ask, or check out the code which should be fairly rare.

AI has been here for a while. If it would have caused FOSS communities to be flooded by AI it probably would have happened by now. We should try and avoid the bias of risk aversion.

Looking at AI . it reminds me of how for wayland there was constant criticism even if it was just plain wrong and just made people overly scared . the plain wrong stuff was highly upvoted and i didn't always have time to correct it, plus people being disrespectful discouraged me from discussing it because i didn't feel it will be productive . now wayland is pretty much accepted as "good" by most of the FOSS social media communities in my experience. when a new technology appears. it takes time and effort to study it deeply and it's advantages and disadvantages . And i suspect people in social media are often not the first to do that honestly.

the problem with "just a tool" is that using it will inherently change how you act.
Best concise way i can put it is that it's like how better hardware has largely just resulted in software not really caring about efficiency any longer.

As a consumer I hate AI-slopped apps. They activly make the experience worse!

Yes please, I'm so tired of seing AI crap projects that will be abandonned in a few months...

That restriction would rule out Linux. Would that be OK?

Yeah, it feels great to not have AI psychosis, you should try it.

Because someone will just make c/realopensource and more people will post there than here.

You’re describing a situation where fewer people adopt ai tools for programming or the adoption rate stays the same. That seems unrealistic. I guess you could also be describing a situation where lots of lemmy users start programming and avoid this community because of its ai ban. That seems like it would be bad though, surely you don’t want a bad thing to happen…

Basing the path of a community on what will be tolerated or even boosted by its most vocal members is not necessarily the best choice.

A better path is probably to make a dedicated hand coding community and use that instead of hijacking the extant open source community.

The problem is, at what point becomes it just Ai assisted. And who decides and how to proof this. These uncertainties are part of the problem for rules like these. Not only is it difficult to decide and time consuming, it also creates friction in the community. Note, I am not against having this rule. It's just, it is such a depressing situation.

Why any efforts to blame? No need to blame Ai. Just use an Ai that blames other failing Ai. Modern problems require modern solution.

Fair enough, I don't have said decades of experience

There's some nuance for sure, but personally I'm a lot less interested in heavily LLM-programmed projects

My mind is to ban it to preserve open source.

You will be preserving it alright, but not progressing it in anyway; A blanket ban wont really solve anything, a more sophisticated system would be a pinned comment warning of AI use, which you should eventually rescind if the author proves they have not abandoned the project when their tokens ran out

Well, fuck... how could I possibly win such a well-versed argument like that?!

No, you!

we would have also missed the train of the blockchain and NFTs.

Only an idiot that hasn't used the tech compares LLMs to blockchain or NFTs.

And how could this amazing technology that literally doesn’t have a single positive point,

Again, hasn't used the tech, and you're stuck in defiant rage mode.

If you were actually in the professional world where people are using and learning alongside these new tools, you wouldn’t be so dismissive about it.

That's what I don't get. Do these people not have a working job? Are they driving a truck or doing manual labor? Do they work as a store clerk? Are they all stuck in the creatives industry?

Like, if you're sitting in front of a computer as part of your job, you're using LLMs. And if you aren't, you're probably using them indirectly and don't even know it.

On /c/selfhosted, you share someone else's project without the disclosure. Age of account requirement is still there, though, has to be at least 30 days old.

If youre aware of some level of ai involvement when posting, its encouraged to mention. If they have an ai disclosure in their repo and you link it, even better.

But since its impossible for a 3rd party to know development details, disclosure doesn't apply. Assuming something similar is done here, that wouldn't be a concern.

By definition a quality programmer wouldn't want to use an LLM. Just like a quality architect wouldn't want to build a house by making monkeys throw bricks in a pile, with the excuse that he goes after them to fix it.

I'd actually say that the "quality" dev that vibe codes is worse, because it often comes with an ego that leads to them wanting to hide that they use AI, or to hide the fact that no, they don't master their code nearly as much as if they wrote it by hand, and it leads to more crap.

I don't know how many more studies proving that LLMs are crap we'll need before the slop stops.

"You can't criticize my sect unless you've been part of it" is a strong stance.

I know enough about this "technology" and the studies around it to know that it's worthless. Just like NFTs that so many people were drooling on.

Autocomplete in your favourite IDE is basically AI assisted too.

I think a reasonable line in the sand is: Does the author of the PR understand what they're doing with this PR and how/why it works? If the PR is complex (like a whole new feature) then the author should be challenged on parts of it even if it looks OK at first glance.

Bro one million lines of code in three months is slop, without me having even read the code.

I made the report and I'm definitely pro AI when it's used responsibly. Sadly about 95% of AI usage nowadays is irresponsible, unmaintainable, vibe-coded bullshit not even the prompters understand.

I'd like the 95% to be banned and the other 5% to be tagged.

I'm not making a value call, I'm saying they are two very different things.

I would support the deletion of any post about any project that is not on the "no ai list" or "slop free" lists

Maybe someone should open a ticket with Lemmy devs to add a user side option for "show ai" next to "show nsfw".

I don't block nsfw, but I do block image posts. I'd love to be able to wholesale block all AI tagged posts too.

Yes please. No AI at all. Assisted, human reviewed, none of it. Only fully human written code.

Yes, ban AI usage and the slop it gives

I think there are multiple reasons to ban AI slop. One is that it can push out and dilute human-made content.

Another is that AI use is very resource intensive in an age that we're facing an accelerating climate crisis. Speaking of which, we're expecting a pretty extreme El Niño season this year.

Another is that AI companies are lobbying the US federal government in bad faith (up to and including the current discussions of slowdown), and really don't deserve any support or patronage.

We consider the issue at that time.

Other things will also change.

Maybe I will have thrown my computer gear in the river.

Maybe there will be other communities who reject AI content, or others who embrace it.

Maybe the zombie apocalypse will have arrived.

Seriously though, it's about the quality of the content. IMO we want to avoid unsustainable projects where someone has vibe-coded some unmaintainable mess. Other long lived projects with responsible AI use are less problematic.

the post is not about this 1M LoC project, it's about creating a ban for whatever the mods decide it's slop

We allow it on our large subreddits on reddit. What we do is use a bot to filter repos that are less than 3 months old.

People who vibe code slop just want to share their thing and then abandon it. A limit like that or even 6 months will kill majority of this sort of low effort crap. Most of these people just let Claude or whatever sign the repo as well, another easy way to catch slop.

Developers that develop and only use AI as a tool build great products still as they review all their code.

A blanket ban is just going to make people be more sneaky.

Oh man don't look at some of my earlier repos while I was learning then.

You shouldn't worry about all the what ifs, you deal with the now and adjust as things change. This is a lemmy community not a government law.

For me the most important thing is that something is free software. I've seen people advertise proprietary stuff in this community and have reported it, and nothing has been done. I don't know if that means my reports don't federate properly or if it's tacitly approved by the moderators. I know in the degoogle community there are "trusted' proprietary apps that are often recommended but this should not be the case in a free software or open source community. In any case, any rule that bans "AI slop" while allowing proprietary products is in my mind backwards.

Regarding "AI slop" I am generally in agreement with Codeberg's policy which states,

You must not share projects that mostly consist of code written by "generative AI"-tools (including services such as Claude, OpenAI Codex).

I suppose "mostly" is up to interpretation but for me this specifically targets vibecoded apps where there is no or very minimal human involvement. This may be heterodoxy but I actually don't think "an otherwise human-written codebase with a single line of LLM code" is the same thing as an entirely LLM generated codebase. I think there's room for nuance especially if the usage is disclosed (I don't think punishing transparency should be encouraged).

What I wanted to say is: I'm pretty sure we can trust the community and moderators to recognise the difference between slop and AI assistance.

Yes, if the Autocomplete uses Ai features then it is Ai assisted. But what about searching for bugs? Nothing is Ai created in this case, but it is Ai assisted. Even if you did not incorporate any generated code from the Ai model.

And what about projects who do not disclose it? We have to deceiver and guess if its just Ai assisted or has some parts that are Vibe coded. This is what I mean it gets time consuming, and adds friction. How do we even know if this was not just copy pasted from the web (which seems to be okay for smaller stuff), and how do the person know if the copy pasted code was created by an Ai assist? They might not even know if they are honest.

I strongly disagree with this. The reality is that using LLMs to build things is becoming increasingly more common. And just because something is built using LLMs doesn't automatically make it slop or useless. There are plenty of genuinely useful open source projects built with these tools, and just because you're personally opposed to that is not a reason to ban them outright.

This is why we have the voting system on Lemmy as well. If people post slop whether it's human or LLM assisted, then it can get downvoted naturally. I also see zero evidence of this community drowning in any sort of slop.

I don't know if you were aware, but burgerland doesn't have a monopoly on LLM development. And nowadays there are competent models you can even run locally that work just fine for coding.

This whole trope that AI is very resource intensive is completely outdated, while people like you just keep parroting it uncritically. You're certainly not going to be solving extreme climate change by banning LLM assisted code on a niche community. This is the most lib brained take ever.

Just like a quality architect wouldn’t want to build a house by making monkeys throw bricks in a pile, with the excuse that he goes after them to fix it.

If the result of the monkeys throwing bricks in a pile is indistinguishable from a team of builders, what does it matter how it got there. If the end result is a pile of garbage, of course it's unusable and a waste of resources. It's about the end result.

I don’t know how many more studies proving that LLMs are crap we’ll need before the slop stops.

Imagine if in the year 2000 someone said "how many studies does it take to show computers are slow before we stop wasting time on them". It's a technology. Whether you like it or not, this moment is the worst the technology will ever be. The studies you reference are about outdated technology

That seems to be the standard for everything else. Anything generated by AI should have a disclaimer.

It's the same argument for anything AI: "It's inevitable!"

What is fully human written and how are you as a human(I assume) able to distinguish between what is laboriously typed and what is generated, here lets try this exercise and see if you can spot any difference
Here is a code I have typed by hand

"smash":
        push    rbp
        mov     rbp, rsp
        call    "smash"
        pop     rbp
        ret

and here is machine generated code with the prompt, the slop machine used here is a compiler

GCC take this C code void smash(){smash();} and make it executable
and here is the output

"smash":
        push    rbp
        mov     rbp, rsp
        call    "smash"
        nop
        pop     rbp
        ret

I'm fine with a people asking for open source AI models or sharing projects they made with the help of AI but not completely vibecoded slop.

These kinds of threads are great for finding new people to go in my block list.

Yes to ban 👍