Selfhosted

60281 readers

663 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

Detailed Rules Post

Be civil.
No spam.
Posts are to be related to self-hosting.
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or readme if you're providing a link.
Submission headline should match the article title.
No trolling.
Promotion posts require active participation, with an account that is at least 30 days old. F/LOSS without a paywall has exceptions, with requirements. See the rules link for details.

Resources:

selfh.st Newsletter and index of selfhosted software and apps
awesome-selfhosted software
awesome-sysadmin resources
Self-Hosted Podcast from Jupiter Broadcasting

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

curbstickle@anarchist.nexus

curbstickle_lw@lemmy.world

361

[META] Should AI disclosure tags [AI], [NOT AI] be mandated when sharing projects? (aussie.zone)

submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by SuspiciousCarrot78@aussie.zone to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world

165 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] AHemlocksLie@lemmy.zip 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I understand that people have concerns, but those concerns are only relevant if they come from a maintainer or repo owner point of view.

This just isn't true. Whether I'm a developer or not, I have to deal with the security issues that come with running the code. I have to deal with the bugs that come from it. I have to decide if I'm willing to support practices I may consider unethical used to produce the software, especially if I'm considering donating to the project. I don't need to be a topic expert to understand that AI code is prone to bugs and security vulnerabilities, nor do I need to be one to consider the massive ecological damage and copyright violation required to train the plagiarism machine.

However, to use AI to brainstorm, get suggestions, discuss architecture, learn with examples, and assist basically like someone else is sitting next to you while you code yourself... that is something completely different, and results in a completely different outcome.

Generally, people take the most issue with using it to actually generate code in any capacity. There are purists who might insist you not even touch AI, but I think most draw the line at including code or graphics not written by a human.

In the end, it depends on can the person at the steering wheel take full ownership and accountability of the code they produced, with or without AI.

If we presume ethically neutral tools, sure, but the massive damage to ecosystems and towns that comes with training, using, and powering AI are seen by many as outweighing the utility they're able to provide.

[–] Fedditor385@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

You don't blame the knife when people get stabbed, so why blame AI for code it generated on the developer's behalf? AI is a tool. Nothing more.

For the other stuff - I can't take people seriously, because most people pick and choose when it's convenient to be moral and ethical. Same people who don't like AI pollution are using cars and plastics in their daily lives and would absolutely flip out if someone would ask them to give it up for the environment. AI is just the current "trend" to hate and be moral about because not many people are depending on it yet in ther day to day life.

[–] AHemlocksLie@lemmy.zip 1 points 11 hours ago

You don't blame the knife when people get stabbed, so why blame AI for code it generated on the developer's behalf?

Because creating a knife doesn't require a tens of MW data center that runs on gas turbines, making the surrounding area unlivable with noise pollution. It doesn't require stealing knowledge from the entire world and then selling us our own knowledge back. It doesn't help billionaires lay off tens of thousands of us.

can't take people seriously, because most people pick and choose when it's convenient to be moral and ethical.

So you're using other people's moral flexibility to justify your own rather than taking any sort of stance of your own, cool.

Same people who don't like AI pollution are using cars and plastics in their daily lives and would absolutely flip out if someone would ask them to give it up for the environment.

Using cars as an example is a bit disingenuous since in the US, at least, huge swathes of the nation are simply not built for pedestrians; buying and maintaining a car is the hidden tax you pay to the auto industry instead of the government. There are plenty of places in the US where it is not safe to bike or walk. Some of us are pissed about it, but what are we supposed to do until infrastructure is massively reworked at exorbitant cost?

AI is just the current "trend" to hate and be moral about because not many people are depending on it yet in ther day to day life.

This is nothing more than an attempt to downplay the issue so you can ignore it.