Just make people disclose it in the title
post
Remove them
I vote to remove myself but I'd be fine with just having to state AI involvement
Remove them
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.
My secret non-disclosed own policy on projects I control: if I realize you used LLMs, the change will be rejected. There are people who use LLMs but still it's 100% their change and design, they just didn't type it by themselves and you cannot figure out.
I'm not anti-AI but would caution you to see what has been done to communities like /r/selfhosted after the vibe coders found it. Every other post is about a project that has severe memory leaks, over engineered code for simple tasks, and significant security risks especially if someone stupidly opens it up to the internet. These people are putting others in danger with their ignorance even if they think they are 'helping'. Maybe disclosures will work fine for a smaller forum like this, but elsewhere, the sheer volume makes it unmanageable.
Remove.
Require an AI tag for anything written in part or in whole by AI.
remove
How about making a rule that it is at least six months old and in continued development? This would filter out most slop.
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.
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.
AI slop & AI code is very different. If its just pure vibe coded slop with no oversight or effort, then sure its just junk, remove it.
But a lot of experienced developers now use AI tooling to increase productivity, just because AI was used in the process should be consider it slop?
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.
Agreed. Needs to be disclosed in the title of the post as having AI involvement, and show signs of active maintenance. Anyone can now oneshot some slop that's nothing but a waste of our time, but it takes good developers to maintain, secure and expand.
5 days old, nope, hasn't been touched in months, nope. Dozens of active human participants, and/or a reasonable history of active development and to a lesser degree stars or equivalent, sure.
It's a bit more work for a poster, but I think it can keep quality high for project posts. Should be voted on by the community and made a rule.
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.
Rule 1 says Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
I don't think any ai projects can claim to be that when their copyright status is debatable and the tooling is worse with how closed their training is.
People against LLM parrot the same arguments again and again that it has simply lost its original meaning.
copyright status is debatable
debatable by who? who is going to settle this debate?, the courts who serve corporate greed?, Legislation made by politicians lobbied by SaaS companies? Anthropic? OpenAi? Microsoft?
The "Copyright is debatable/ its just a plagiarism machine" stance is not the Leftist/ pro FOSS gotcha argument you think it is. The point of the FOSS movement was to have total freedom over software, and that freedom includes the ability to study, learn and use it in ways it was not intended for. To stand as the antitheses of that is make Steve Balmer happy
Since when has development tooling mattered for something to be FOSS? If it relies on propietary software to build or run it then there's an argument it's not truly free.
But if we're saying that anything developed using closed source tools is not allowed then we'll have to throw out anything that was developed on a mac or Windows PC.
I think requiring AI disclosure like how !selfhosted@lemmy.world does is a good approach. Not all projects rely as heavily on LLMs as others.
I'm gonna agree with others that there need to be standards not a blanket ban. I'd leave it up to the admins/mods what those are. Because getting too granular with it wold be hard to enforce. You guys pick something you feel is reasonable and will cut down on 0 effort slop but also allows you to enforce things without digging through the minutia of every post.
I advocate for a disclosure, blanket removal feels like censorship; even vibe coded slop is a project that might generate interest if it was made to solve some problem or showcase a new frontier, nature of OSS will push the slop out of the project eventually.
When I say "slop", I refer to a huge codebase that does what it advertise but has no documentation on what it does internally and the primary poster cannot adequately explain what it does(code mudball esentially). but if its well documented and looks like it was put together with care, with rhyme and reason than I will defend against calling it slop
Remove them. There's nothing "open source" about the outputs of your black box text generator
Very hard question. I think, idk. For me Open Source isn't AI so i think remove it because it makes /c/opensource less attractive and worse but some things like about Craft i think it can be but i'am not moderator so i think ban it completely or most of it.
We had Slop before AI. we just called "shit".
If a coder wants to shit out a project that never works and never patches it? I want them to notice the culture and know better.
If someone is learning, using the tools they have available, and shows a commitment to maintain their project? I want to see their work. I wanna see them get help from the community to be more literate in their own project, and in the full toolset they're using.
Most of these vibecoded submissions are the former. Thank you for removing the fecalware. If the community decides it needs to remove AI at all to keep this up? Eh, there's dbzer0.
I think a disclosure at least in the title of the post should be required. But only if the software is known to be not slop at all. The problem with this approach is, that everyone has their own threshold and definition of what slop means, or are misinformed about the project. Overall I do not think it's a good idea to ban any Ai contributed or assisted project.
As an example, do you consider Linux to be Ai slop project?
I'm referring to these new projects coded by AI from scratch, not existing projects which have an occasional LLM contribution.
People are submitting a lot of these AI projects recently.
Disclosure. If LLMs are used in service of open-source projects, then they are relevant, but clearly many in the community feel that to be negative, and therefore there should be a disclosure. Someone can make open source software using closed-source tooling already, so disallowing one form of tooling entirely is letting a moral reaction interfere with how we understand open source.
Linux would have to be removed from discussion, for example, if all LLM-contributed projects were to be disallowed. I don't see why rules should be made with explicit exceptions in mind, yet excluding Linux cuts out a huge portion of open source discussion.
Remove, and suggest they go start an AI software community. We can't be monsters to people who might not know better.
Remove them. If you can't ensure you own all the code written you can't make it open source. It's not yours to license.
I hope it's not allowed here
I am going to go the other way and say the more, the merrier. I like to see new and interesting things that someone did to scratch an itch or solve a problem. I may not use it or agree with how they developed it or the license they chose, etc., but I still like seeing the posts about it.
disclosure + a tag so they can be filtered out for those that want to (actually does Lemmy support that? I'm not sure)
I would say to just require them to be tagged, but the volume of them seems quite high. Might be better to just ban them and they can create a separate community.
top 50 comments