513
Ban AI Slop? (lemmy.ml)
submitted 2 weeks ago by [M] to c/opensource@lemmy.ml
170 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 11 points 2 weeks ago (8 children)
  • someone with zero experience using AI to blindly create something barely functional, feeding in errors until it gets a working version. No checking for vulnerabilities, testing, error catching, no thought on architecture or scalability.
  • someone carefully using AI in a controlled manner to create open source software. They spend days making sure that is reliable, scalable, secure, and that the project is quality.

You believe these two are them same? That both are equal slop? Quite frankly, I don't care if an AI made most of the code for an open source project as long as it is made well, and allows me to get away from awful proprietary alternatives. If the output of an AI is distinguishable from a quality programmer, idk how that is also slop.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (3 children)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [+] -7 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 week ago

    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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago

    Just like a quality architect wouldn't want to build a house

    As someone who actually went to school for that before tech - architects don't build houses.

    You know who does, in the US? Del Webb and other massive builders, who give the lowest common denominator slop because that's what the economics of the market demand, and the profits of the funding require.

    The problem is almost always the power relationships behind the tools - it's not that the plans are done by CAD or hand that matter.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent