Yup, I’m posting another this week. Sorry.
This week I’m hoping we can wrangle a solution around AI and our selfhosted community. There are plenty of strong opinions (both pro and con), but one thing is for certain - there needs to be better disclosure in promo posts. Two options (that aren’t mutually exclusive):
- Any posts of an AI focused, AI Developed, etc software gets an [AI] tag. No, a [Not-AI] tag is not needed to accomplish this, thats kind of a “non-golfer” sort of tag.
- Comment requiring an AI disclosure response to every promo post, if its not detailed in the post itself. Specifics (generating docs for commands, translation, whole-boat vibe-coded this app, etc) would be requested.
I will say that having disclosure and/or tagging would mean that comments that just say “slop” or “fuck ai” or whatever would be off topic at that point, that information is already provided, so its just noise (and sometimes pretty uncivil - I’ve been light on that for now due to the need for a rule on this).
The tag [AI] would make it easy to filter out (or search for, if that’s your thing), but there is a wildly different degree of AI use out there, and from the posts with a positive score, its usually due to responsible AI use (translations, a snippet they had to do something obscure with, available to use with AI but doesn’t require it, whatever), which is why I think the disclosure has a place as a benefit to everyone.
Please provide any input or alternative options on this, and I can then put it to a vote like the last one. Comments seem to be the best approach without involving something off-site, but if you have a better idea/option, please share.
Personally. I want an AI tag so I know to look more carefully.
I don’t mind AI speeding up a skilled engineer.
But I do mind a crypto bro, turned AI bro, with little experience, too eagerly advertising their vibe coded app.
Its too exhausting to audit everything I may be interested in and the AI tag would help me to budget and optimize my time.
My 2 cents are that the issue is promotion not AI, if people started promoting stuff made without AI that would still be spam.
From the rules:
F/LOSS Exception: If your post is about a project that is completely open source & can be self-hosted in full without payment, your post is exempt from the 10% requirement. The exception does not exempt you from the account age requirement.
I would propose making this the requirement and not an exception, forbid all promotion of closed source, and allow the 10% requirement for open source projects.
Unfortunately the comments I’ve seen and the reports I get would disagree. Even on older accounts that post and comment plenty.
I think tags are a good idea. I would change the tag to [AI / LLM], and maybe some subtags like [chatbot], [image processing], etc. AI is here to stay, or a least until the US realize the hole under their entire economy (Or both in worst case scenerio) , so regulation is a good solution to this. (In my humble opinion)
I think this should be a thing. At the same time, I would also want something similar for funding or platforming fascists, but that is unlikely to end up being done. I think a simple tag, the [AI] one would work, is the best current solution. I think extra detail in the post is a good thing to do, for example AI assisted documentation, AI assisted bug finding, AI assisted vibe coding. They are all different and have different effects on the product and community. If someone uses AI to find bugs in their own code I am all for it, that is a great use if it. If they use AI to write their login system I am not keen at all given the likelihood of intense security issues and the low likelihood that they will ever fix it.
Promoting the imaginary grift of “AI” is almost the same thing as promoting the fascists who are profiting.
I would also want something similar for funding or platforming fascists
Ooh that would be good
I wonder if there is a database somewhere…
Disagree. Just deal with people that aren’t contributing in a positive manner like normal. It’s easy to identify posts that are dealing with AI and it’s easy to ignore them.
It is.
But people don’t do that. They send in a whole bunch of reports, sometimes multiple with the reason changing to the same variation.
So something is needed here.
I would still prefer an additional [Non-AI] tag. Even if people are arguing against it - it is not same omitting an [AI] tag and consciously saying “I never used and never will use AI”. And the latter is the thing most users who want the AI-tag are looking for.
Same. It removes the ability to have plausible deniability of “oh I just forgot to tag it”—no, if you tagged it “non-AI” and it was actually vibe-coded, you clearly deliberately and consciously lied.
I’m going to actually +1 this as well.
I really is like having the disclosure comment pinned for a more nuanced explanation of what, if any, AI went into a project or post. I think just a tag can’t capture the levels of AI use.
I’m personally a never-genAI, but, unless we go No AI as a community, I don’t think it makes sense to group all projects that touch AI for documentation with all that use it for testing with all that completely let the AI generate all their code, etc. And I don’t think setting a threshold for which get tagged makes sense either. Basically, a tag is misleading no matter how it’s implemented.
Sounds like a good solution for me. I think most users dislike completely vibe coded apps, not ai supported apps. So maybe we should be more specific here.
For example: [Vibe-Coded]
This would also support new users finding the right tag.
Yes this is needed. Thank you for the proposal here.
I would suggest that this probably needs to be really explicit about any AI involvement, i.e. a minimum if AI is used in any capacity in the coding process, it should require the tag. And ideally an explanation if it was used in other parts of the process.
That last post that came up said they used AI ‘for code review only’. In my mind even that deserves the tag, because these terms are so easy to work around. Someone can ‘code up’ the following:
#include <studio.h> int main(void) { printf(“Program that does X thing”;) }
(yes, I know the main arguments are not written correctly. You get the point)
and then have the AI reviewer ‘fix’ their code by doing all the actual work. A strict requirement for this tag, for any AI involvement in the creation of the code seems like the key. The code part is going to be where the security issues crop up, and where it’s really important to know who or what is producing the code you’re about to run on your home server.
I think we’re fairly used to a world where people use templates for their websites, documentation, etc. AI use there bothers me less, but an honest disclaimer saying what the AI did would sure go a long way to reducing the hate comments. I think people will still drive-by downvote, but that can’t (and IMO really shouldn’t be) prevented. But without a rule, people aren’t going to be honest.
The scary part is just how emboldened people feel nowadays to just entirely use an AI for all the coding, documentation, website, and then not even put their name on the project. These to me feel like borderline state actor trojan horses disguised as open-source projects.
Legitimate open source developers can spend years writing code to do something very sinplle but useful, and for them to be drowned out by a bunch of completely AI driven, slop posts really bothers me.
It’s probably not tenable to do this. Approx 100% of projects touch AI in some way or another. See -
https://github.blog/news-insights/research/survey-ai-wave-grows/
Yep. It is a time-suck to see an interesting new project only to check it out and find out it’s AI slop. For some apps, it doesn’t bother me… They may not require the access or stability of critical apps. Other times, I just can’t trust a slop app, and it would be very helpful to know which it is in advance.
If you don’t delineate, it will simply be easier to tag everything ai as there was ai involved somewhere and you’re less likely to need to defend yourself.
Also:
Anything with an [AI] tag, first thing in the title, will have a drive-by downvote issue.
Not sure how to deal with that, or if its even a concern.
Maybe it should be something else that’s not such a loaded keyword?
Yes, since “AI” doesn’t exist, maybe we should use more accurate terminology. That would certainly deter those who don’t believe in the imaginary grift in “AI”.
Oh I’m sure it will be. I don’t know if its a concern though - TBD I suppose.
TBD indeed. But it will effectively ‘downrank’ posts and their visibility, maybe into the negative vote range. I’ve seen highly negative scores across the board in more machine-learning focused subs, and that’s without a tag that catches the eye so easily.
I think even modifying the acronym could make a difference, though (as I ninja edited).
I do like the idea of a different tag, still easy to filter but less of a target like the ai generated communities out there.
For what it’s worth, I asked my self-hosted LLM (MiMo 2.5, no network access outside my desktop), and it came with [AIT] (AI-Topic).
…I think that’s my favorite so far. [AIP] would work too.
I feel like that “obfuscates” the tag enough to blunt impulse downvotes in /new and feeds, without being deceptive or anything.
Actually both are pretty good - AIT for it as a more discussion oriented, AIP for a project post.
I like it, I think something like that would be a great idea
Where should the line be drawn for what is AI coded vs AS assisted (in some manner) and thus tagged?
XerahS is very openly coded with AI and should be tagged. But what about the recent debate about the use of LLM in cURL?
So thats one of the questions that will need to go to a poll, but if I were to give my opinion it would be that any use would mean a tag, and the disclosure area is where it can be detailed.
Otherwise we’d end up with a bajillion differing tags, so a disclosure section makes more sense.
Not tagging for assisted would also mean setting arbitrary lines, and would be way too subjective imo.
Oh, both! Yeah. I didn’t even think of that, but [AIT]/[AIP] as separate tags makes a lot of sense.
I’d like being able to filter by either, actually.
I guess two tags runs the risk of “rules too complex for some to follow,” but that’s more of a moderation load question. I have no say in that, heh.
The subtle irony of this shouldn’t escape us - your self hosted AI coming up with a solution to the tagging issue, causing you to be down voted.
It’s a good idea, anyway. [AIT] introduces just the right amount of friction while keeping transparency. +1 to your clanker’s suggestion.
Yeah. Just not sure what it should be, heh.
I will say, if it still has “AI” in the tag (like [LAI] or whatever), it would play nicer with keyword filters.
This is one of my concerns also.
Alternative: make a separate “selfhosted-ai” community for the sloperators.
Alternative: make a separate “selfhosted-ai” community for the sloperators.
this comment is a perfect example of what @curbstickle@anarchist.nexus is trying to eliminate/prevent.
Knee-jerk “noise”!
Please provide any input or alternative options on this,
The post asked for alternative options. I suggested an alternative option. It is not knee-jerk, and it is not noise.
Just to point out a few projects that allow AI contributions:
- Firefox
- NodeJS
- Chromium
- curl
- Go
- InfluxDB
- MariaDB
- Prometheus
- Linux
- openSSL
- Blender
- Mattermost
- Caddy
If you want all projects related to AI in a different community, it may be easier for you to start “selfhosted_without_ai” or something.
There is absolutely zero “AI” involved in the development of any of these. They just use computer programs. No actual intelligence apart from humans.
I think you may be misunderstanding the terminology here.
AI is a general term. LLMs are a subset, as are ML, DL, ANNs, NLP, CV, Expert models, etc.
Today you would define what we have as ANI, where the “N” stands for “Narrow”. This is also known as “weak” AI.
What you’re referring to would be called AGI, where the “G” stands for “General”, where an AI would have a human degree of intelligence. This is pure concept today, and does not exist.
Also on the list would be ASI, where the “S” is for “Super”, where the AI in question has more collective intelligence than humanity across all domains. This is purely hypothetical.
But AI has existed for decades. The first application I know of is Dendral, which was created in the 1950s to analyze mass spectrometry data to identify organic molecules. This was what’s called an Expert model - basically a lot of if-then statements, and led to things like MYCIN.
We don’t need to redefine words here.
Indeed, AI is a tool, and the human should be an expert who verify its work. What I don’t like are posts about apps that are completely vibe-coded without any thought put into them, which pose dangerous security risks.
Thats the reasoning behind the disclosure bit, I agree its a tool, and great when used correctly.
But if you try and use a hammer like a drill, you’re gonna have a bad time.
It is not ‘just a tool.’ It is not “great.” Too many people focus on how it is used and not how it is created, how it affects us, and how it affects the world.
I’m just going to shortcut this and say two things:
-
I can guarantee the overwhelming majority (if not all) of your issues have nothing to actually do with LLMs and everything to do with corporations. Power use, data center buildouts, market impact, whatever - none it is an an llm problem. LLMs are just another piece of software, thats all.
-
Your personal opinion on this, as well as mine, does not change the overall conversation here. So how about we just stick to the topic at hand?
LLMs are inextricably tied to nvidia gpus. Local or cloud, the technology exists to help the shovel salespeople. The gold diggers, everyone this tag is supposed to segregate, have been misled by corporations. Without their lies, and a pliant media, this tag would be unnecessary, and llms would be rolled out in a more limited and responsible way. To promote different uses of gold during a gold rush is going to inflate the bubble and enrich the rich, unless it is properly contextualized. Technology does not exist in a void, pretending it does digs us a deeper hole.
I run my local models on a Mac mini m2, but I could also be using AMD (ROCm), Intel with OpenVINO, or just CPU. Simple edge applications I could even use something like an RK3588.
Being tied to NVidia is marketing from NVidia, not the reality of LLMs.
-
There already are.
I’d argue that Lemmy and piefed need a “sub community” or community taxonomy structure, but that’s kinda out of scope here.
For the grifters who promote the myth of “AI”. Let them have their own delusional echo chamber.
I don’t have a problem with people talking about different open source technologies.
But I do have a problem with this comm promoting the grift that “AI” exists.
What exactly is this post about? Chat bots? Image/video processing? Content generation?
None of this stuff is “AI”. Please don’t label it as such. It’s grifter nonsense.
You know, after last week, I’ve landed on the position that this is an intractable debate. Both sides have valid points and neither side is willing to concede or meet in the middle. That’s just people.
Ironically, I think both sides want he same thing - no bots, no slop.
To that end, for the proper functioning of this group, I think that the wisdom of having an AI tag (even though I personally think it’s a blunt tool) is probably the only productive way forward. The pro and anti sides will not see eye to eye…but at least with [AI] tag, maybe the worst excesses of both may be mitigated.
Cynically, if we look at Reddit as a “what not to do” example…the only thing that stops Lemmy from becoming Reddit 2.0 is friction. The tag provides friction.
Anything that stops the real slop invasion (ala r/localllm et al) is a big plus. I’d like to think that almost all of the users here are savvy enough to tell slop from real, but at the end of the day, if every other post becomes slop, it gets exhausting to deal with.
Bot posts on Lemmy have been on the rise, as (presumably) people migrate from Reddit and bots follow.
If the new community rules + AI tags can mitigate both slop and the FuckAI crowd, I’m for trying it.
EDIT: I think the [AIT] proposed else where is better than straight [AI] tag.
