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

100%

The question of banning "AI slop" is a bit of a loaded one. Yes all slop should be banned. But banning all AI related/engineered work is insane.

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.

Slop by any other name...

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

But humans do basically the same thing and their brains aren't open source either

I truly meant it as a debatable question. If LLMs didn't have massive proven negative ecological and societal impacts, I'm not sure which way I would lean. Since they do, I have a clear personal opinion. But it's just that. My opinion.

agreed. i think metrics like this are much more practical and useful:

• age of project
• number of stars (not great, but can help show overall interest)
• number of versions/updates
• activiely maintained

if an amazing, maintained tool uses AI, that’s a lot different than a one-night project that’s never been tested and will be abandoned in a week

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.

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

remove

Humans also have massive negative ecological and societal impacts depending on the person/society. I don't see how whether a human or LLM writes code changes how open source it is.

As others have said in other posts, the cat's out of the bag. No matter if/when/how bad the AI crash is, if computing is still viable after then there will be AI.

I think eventually it will emerge that the highest quality AI code will be produced by already experienced developers, who can identify when it's produced slop and fix it, and that will be the case no matter how good the models get.

I of think of it somewhat like managing a team of interns. You give them instructions and they give you code. You still have to know enough to identify if that code meets the requirements and is of good quality.

Remove.

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 them

The self-hosted community has a very good take in my opinion. Especially facing the fact that new slop vaporware often comes with new accounts that just advertise the "product".

Disclosure about AI use, account minimums, and mods having discretion to ban obvious junk spam.

Remove them

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

Just make people disclose it in the title

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.

There is no definition of "AI". It's all bullshit. It doesn't exist.

The supposed difference between these two unstated definitions is a difference of scale not of kind. There is no objective dividing line for moderation.

1. All currently existing LLMs are unethically trained on copyrighted code that is incompatible with GPL licensed projects. LLMs have a 3 to 10% chance to unknowingly reproduce the copyrighted code perfectly, introducing legal plagiarism into an open-source project, which could easily open up the developers to being sued in the future if companies scanned open source repos for copyright violations.

2. Some European courts have ruled that LLM generated code cannot be copyrighted at all, meaning that it also cannot be legally made GPL, losing the protections from corporate exploration the GPL normally grants. https://fsfe.org/news/2026/news-20260825-01.html

+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.

• 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

Remove!

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.

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.

AI is a direct result of mass-surveillance. I'll repost what I wrote to a previous user:

Something you're not acknowledging is that this technology stems from surveillance-capitalism and the surveillance-state. Google et al were financed to solve the needs of the state. Google search for consumers was a by-product from the state's need and desire to make sense of their mass-surveillance programs.

Surveillance-capitalism operates under complete deception. Pokemon Go players didn't know they were collecting data for autonomous-murder-drones.

Solving Google's Captchas was unpaid labour: you were creating data for Google's OCR program and now you're creating data for autonomous cars or whatever their investors want you to toil on next.

The original iteration of reCAPTCHA was criticized for using unpaid work to assist in transcribing efforts.[40]

A 13-month study published in 2023, "Dazed & Confused: A Large-Scale Real-World User Study of reCAPTCHAv2," found that reCAPTCHA provides little security against bots and is primarily a tool to track user data, and has cost society an estimated 819 million hours of unpaid human labor.

Out of all this theft, unpaid labour and intrusive surveillance what does the working class get? Housing costs are increasing. Food costs are increasing. Poverty is increasing. What is AI going to do for us? It's not building houses. It's not harvesting crops. It's not giving the working class any material benefit, but is further degrading living conditions. Enjoy the endless drone of a data-center! Enjoy breathing the fumes of gas-turbines! Enjoy talking to chatbots and never a human!

AI is deployed as a barrier between the working class and businesses. AI is deployed to decrease labour costs. AI is deployed to kill. The fact you can create text, images, videos and audios that mimic reality only means more surveillance on the working class because digital-signals can be faked absolutely and are now suspect by default.

You can't eat what AI creates--it is completely immaterial, but it is being used to commit genocide. I'm sure that warms the cockles of the hearts in all of us.

I do not think AI use should be condoned.

I guess it depends on what we mean by "using an LLM". I'm definitely more conservative than most but for me I draw the line at permitting an LLM to author code; while not ideal I can accept using it has a fuzzer and static analysis tool.

The community will have to agree to what its pain tolerance is and enforce that position.

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.

That seems to me to be just more justification for why we should use it. We contributed to creating it, indirectly, so we should benefit from it's creation. Admittedly simple usage isn't sufficient, and all companies that offer LLM services should be heavily taxed, with that revenue redistributed to the populace, but that's a different argument.

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

I completely agree. It can be reworded as developer or software reputation

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.

Wish I could give 100 upvotes.

Quality is quality, shit is shit. Between that there is a vast spectrum. Nothing on that spectrum is intrinsically linked to the apparently cursed property of being produced by or with help of an LLM.

One can be against LLM use for various reasons, and build communities around it, but equating AI = slop is an infantile reaction.

Sure, AI makes it easier to produce polished turds faster. But thats fault of the user, not the tool.

Otherwise we should equally ban VSCode, because everybody knows that good software is written in vim and most slop is done using VSCode. Ridiculous.

I think this is the best reasons in this thread, for what is worth.

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..

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