Based on recent comments this feels like a discussion we should have. So…topic, basically.
I’m not looking to be chief noisemaker on this, but I stand by what I wrote in !privacy and what’s in my post history.
https://lemmy.ml/post/48724623/26190950
Let’s have at; do we want a [AI] and [NOT AI] tag. Why or why not?
I think [AI] tags would be good. That way a certain subset of members could just drive-by downvote without getting themselves dirty. [NOT AI] seems redudant since we’ve already defined [AI], but again for quick filtering purposes, I see no harm in both.
Having both an [AI] and a [not AI] tag allows immediate differentiation between a not AI post and a did not tag post.
But it’s annoying. Non AI should be default, AI has to be marked.
Edit: whoops, I thought this was a different community. Ignore me.
Yes, but no. [Not AI] tags would be just as much for your benefit as it would be for the poster’s. Until they become official tags in a mandatory field to post, someone who cuts corners is going to skip reading the rules and post without a tag. Or even if the onus were only on the “AI” posters, then they’ll miss or forget to check the box, select the tag, etc.Therefore, you’ll want to be able to sort by [Not AI], and then safely assume that anything else probably isn’t worth your time. Additionally, someone who uses AI and then intentionally abuses the [Not AI] tag could be assumed to have lied about anything else in their project, and should not be considered a trustworthy creator or worthwhile poster.No, I don’t. I’d rather have no tags at all and some AI posts in there than every post needing annoying tags in the title. Also not every post is related to a specific piece of software
Oh, I just noticed what community I was commenting in. Yes, you’re completely right, then. It’s more of a helpful little tag for those who are interested than a filter for different types of creators.
I’d assumed, obviously incorrectly and with the wrong context, that you were expressing anti-AI views, so I was trying to communicate how not fully standardizing (labeling) the data (posts) would affect you from your, once again, improperly assumed perspective.
Oh, I hold anti AI views :-) Just not so fierce that I want to be warned of every mention
I want the subreddit to be at least 95% NOT AI, but without completely excluding AI content (which must be tagged) and I don’t want to see everything tagged “[NOT AI]” because that’s genuinely obnoxious.
I understand that this is maybe not realistically achievable given the technical limitations within the Lemmy platform, but those limitations are not going to make such an implementation any less obnoxious, even if it is implemented that way for my benefit.
I would rather trust the mods and downvoters to clean up not-tagged or dishonestly Not-AI-tagged AI content, personally.
Yeah, I thought I was in one of the programming communities (we call them communities vs subreddits, which is why they’re prepended with “c/” instead of “r/”), which is why I was being so anal about creators and their values/meticulousness.
Obviously, for a community that’s often full of people posting “look what I found,” or “here’s my advice,” I was proposing far too much rigor that would absolutely kill the mood here.
Reasonable.
I think tags could be alright but only if this is not allowed, it is unreasonable to ask people to disclose something just so others can shit on them for it.
I totally dig what your saying. I’m not a downvoter period. In my short time here at Lemmy, AI assisted projects are going to get shit on one way or another. It’s unfortunate, but it is what it is. I think the narrative of this thread is to attempt to make things conducive to all users. I personally do not outright reject AI assisted projects. My main concern is if I spin up a container and it turns out to be a doughnut. AI assisted or no, unless you speak multi code languages fluently, you are taking a risk either way. You are placing your trust in the dev and the few that can read code.
There is definitely a trust issue and a need for ways of conveying and building trust in smaller software projects. I think a much better solution there would be discussions about the code and how it works that aren’t hostile interrogations with foregone conclusions in pursuit of a broader anti-AI agenda. If someone just put a lot of effort into making something the details of that process should be on their mind, it should be possible to make them more accessible to people and convey that there is non-artificial understanding behind the project. Automatic hostility and suspicion makes those kinds of conversations harder and less likely.
You’re preaching to the choir but I will give an amen.
good lord, who does this? why waste the thumb energy? seems like a dick move… it’s easier to do no harm. crappy posts will die by themselves.
Again, I dig what you are saying, and I have a similar mind set. However, there is a strong faction of very vocal anti-AI anything, here at Lemmy. Both sides of the argument about AI coded projects or AI in general do have some valid points. However, in my estimation, and as I’ve said before, it’s 2026 and AI is here to stay. It is a good assumption that any project within the last 5 years or so has been at least AI assisted, if not outright vibe coded. Even updates to long standing projects now have AI involvement.
Yes, to me, the option to exercise your mouse wheel to glide over posts you are uninterested in, seems very obvious.