I had a report for AI slop today. 1m LOC in 3 months. How do you even modify and distribute that? I do not think we had a rule against it.

IMHO if we allow, the community gets drowned out by AI vomit and it is harder to see handcrafted loved projects that are easy to modify and distribute.

My mind is to ban it to preserve open source.

Are folk in agreememt with this line? Would love to hear your thoughts.

  • Otter@lemmy.ca
    0·
    1 month ago

    This was a problem in [email protected] and they’ve done a good job of dealing with it. You could take a look at that past discussion to see what worked / what didn’t.

    IMO there is an organized effort behind some of these new accounts pushing AI projects, and you need to deal with it in some form to stop them from coming

    • urushitan 漆たん@kakera.kintsugi.moe
      0·
      1 month ago

      Agreed. TLDR, you must tag posts there with the following:

      Post Tagging

      There are three types of tags for project promotional / AI posts.

      • [CBH] - Code By Human - A project promotional post with a project that did not use AI in any capacity. No disclosure necessary.
      • [AIP] - AI Project - A project promotional post with a project that used AI in development in any capacity. Disclosure is required for how it was used.
      • [AIT] - AI Topic - A discussion topic that includes AI. This may be for a discussion on hardware to self-host on, llama.cpp vs ollama, your experience using vulkan, etc.
  • MissingGhost@lemmy.ml
    0·
    1 month ago

    I am convinced that, with the right tools, it’s possible to damage 40 years of work within a few weeks.

  • Zensate@lemmy.world
    0·
    1 month ago

    Ban it, lemmy sets itself apart from places like reddit by having fewer but actually good quality posts.

    AI slop is completely against this.

  • IEatDaFeesh@lemmy.world
    0·
    1 month ago

    Ban the use of AI, Stack overflow, and documentation in general. If a human can’t build their functions from scratch using Assembly for every project, then their work is slop. They also can’t reuse their code because copy pasting is ethically wrong even if you know what the functions do.

    • skisnow@lemmy.caEnglish
      0·
      1 month ago

      The interesting thing about this post is that it’s exactly equally as wrong whether you take it as sarcasm or at face value.

  • basiliscos@lemmy.ml
    0·
    1 month ago

    I think the new category - “open source and hand-made/human crafted software” should be introduced

  • TrollAccount69@lemmy.ml
    0·
    1 month ago

    Since speaking directly to the proposed change didn’t do much, here’s an alternative to “banning ai slop”:

    Ban the thing that’s happening. If there are too many “low effort” posts, ban low effort posting. If there are too many posts about non open source packages, ban posting about non open source software. If you really don’t want people self promoting with open source (a thing they’ve been doing for decades!) then ban self promotion.

    The problem with all the things I just suggested is that they require serious consideration on the part of a moderator. “Is this post too low effort?”, “is this person promoting themselves in a way the community doesnt want?” and “is this post even about open source?” Are questions that require moderator effort. “Was the repo signed by Claude?” Takes no effort to answer.

    Of course kicking kids out of the sandbox for not playing right kind of defeats the purpose of a sandbox and placing unnecessarily high barriers to entry on the commons defeats the purpose of a commons but what the hell do I know…

    • skisnow@lemmy.caEnglish
      0·
      1 month ago

      The biggest problem I’ve seen with the “use AI help but you’re ultimately responsible for what you submit” approach is that it’s damn near impossible to usefully define or enforce what “responsible” actually entails.

    • Artemis_Mystique@lemmy.ml
      0·
      1 month ago

      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
      spoiler

      please dont take this seriously

    • corsicanguppy@lemmy.caEnglish
      0·
      1 month ago

      I thought it was “messy, generated code with little cohesion and only barely functional”, but really it’s the cohesion part.

      • Bazoogle@lemmy.world
        0·
        1 month ago

        messy, generated code with little cohesion and only barely functional

        Okay, you’ve described my code. Now what about the AI?

  • kazerniel@piefed.worldEnglish
    0·
    1 month ago

    Yes please. It’s dispiriting to regularly go through the cycle of seeing an interesting project pop up here, oh wait it’s vibe-coded crap, nevermind…

  • Chloé 🥕@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    0·
    1 month ago

    yes to a ban, these projects are worthless to most but their authors. and good for them, but they can keep their trash for themselves.

    like 95% of new foss projects i see pop up are heavily ai-generated, and often in very unsubtle ways (line half the commits being “co-authored by” claude, that sort of thing)

    it would be nice to have a community where we can share and discuss projects made by humans, so they don’t drown in the llm bile