Yes, [AI] should be mandatory. No need for the other one, that's just the standard.
this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2026
361 points (95.5% liked)
Selfhosted
60281 readers
705 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:
-
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
What does it mean for a project to deserve the [AI] tag? This matters, because you may have a lot of projects where a developer may think "no" and someone else thinks "yes". Some examples from my day job:
- Developer used AI to understand part of the codebase and suggest ways to accomplish goal. Developer incorporated that suggestion, though using their own knowledge deviated from AI's suggestion in parts. Developer wrote the code themselves. Is this project [AI] or [NOT AI]?
- Developer used AI to review existing (human-written) code for quality and security purposes. AI noticed some issues and proposed fixes. Developer reviewed and accepted them. Is this project [AI]?
- Developer knew they wanted to implement a feature, and while implementing it there was a boilerplate function. Developer asked AI to write this function, manually reviewed it, confirmed it worked, and added it to the codebase. Is this project [AI]?
In these examples the developer carefully reviews the AI's output, which I think distinguishes it from vibe-coded slop, which at least is what I want to ignore.
It's also worth noting that an open-source project may receive and incorporate a well-written contribution where the human developer used AI carefully like this. Unless they disclosed that they used AI, it may be unknowable to the project maintainers whether their project is [AI] or not, depending on how you define it. What tag should these projects use?
Sir, this is Lemmy. If you use AI in any way, you are clearly in league with the devil and deserve to burn.
I agree with all your points, BTW.
I posted this discussion because I wanted to explore both guard rails AND nuance around that sort of work flow, particularly for our new mod (and in light of several other scattered convos).
A lot of the diffuse FuckAI Lemmy crowd have poor understanding of code workflow. "AI bad" knee jerks so hard it's going to dislocate something.
I've tried to argue this point, because roughly... ooh...100% of code gen touches AI something. So, do we tag everything?
What people really want is a [SLOP] tag, which is both lazy / not doing your own due diligence and impossible to implement.
In hindsight, I think the pragmatic approach is ultimately the workable (albeit blunted) one. Have the ai tag. It flattens everything but if stops brigading and slop, that's the least amount of moderation work.
I appreciate you posting btw.
Sir, this is Lemmy. If you use AI in any way, you are clearly in league with the devil and deserve to burn.
Bahahahahahaha!
@festus @selfhosted Excellent examples. What the tag [AI] conveys is not what you really need to know, which is the quality of the code (component/unit), unit testing, and so forth. I assume there is some acceptance testing done at the project level. The human who submits the code must understand that flaws in their code is their responsibility, just as those who contribute/maintain the project are responsible at the system level. It is both an objective and reputational process. Does it really matter what tools are used if the work product passes the test, verification and validation criteria? Sloppy code is not unique to AI tools.
I think this is a major over generalisation that misses the main point of why people don't want AI projects. The real questions are:
- Is this slop?
- Does a human understand all of this code?
- Did a human design this deliberately or is it completely derivative and uninspired?
- Will a human take responsibility for bugs that come up?
- Did a human write the docs?
- Will this be maintained or just a weekend project with no substance?
- Does this actually serve a purpose?
Idk how to address these things really. I could see the AI tag going both ways, but I do think it's painting with too broad a brush.
I'm in the process of launching a new business as a single dev, and I want to be upfront about my use of AI, but I notice as soon as I mention any LLM, most people assume what I've built is "vibe coded" without even looking at the applications themselves.
I spent almost two months just setting up the devops side of things before I even considered publishing. Feedback buttons in the apps automatically open issues on my Forgejo, push mirrors to GitHub and Codeberg, and I do weekly progress reports internally (I stopped posting to Lemmy after people felt spammed and now I just post on the site blog)
I'm just not sure how to make it easy to tell that I'm actually putting my heart and soul into building software that should help people.
If curious: https://circuitforge.tech/
I looked at your site. Realistically I think we're talking about two different things here. There are tools which were programmed with the assistance of AI and then there are AI powered tools. Your stuff is clearly the latter.
I think ai powered tools are a lot harder to sell people on right now. The ai powered area is where I see by far the most shovelware/slop.
To be blunt, when I see a new ai powered tool I assume several things:
- This is low effort slop
- A tech bro vibe coded this 100%
- No one cares about this
- It will either make a ton of money or be abandoned next week
- If it's popular, anthropic will buy/clone it and everyone will use their version instead
I know this isn't true of every ai powered app but it's true of 99% of them right now. I really have no idea how you could convince people yours isnt slop.
One idea might be to stop using the term "AI". It's a buzzword with strong connotations. Some people hear it and think "gold rush", some people think "slop" or "data center".
Personally I would be a lot more likely to take a project seriously if they used the term "LLM" or "machine learning" to describe what powers the product.
Also, I don't see anything that looks like obvious AI art to me but DONT USE AI ART. AI art is already terrible on its own but when I see AI art mixed with AI text telling me about an AI powered app I'm 1000% done giving my attention.
For sure on the art. I'm a graphic artist by education and I'm already working with another full-time artist on the application logos. When I make enough I'm planning to hire a proper web developer for the frontend/web design as that's onc area I do lean pretty heavy on the LLM's for assistance.
Funny you should mention the AI vs LLM labeling as I much prefer to call them LLM's or "models", but I'm trying to keep it accessible for non-technical people. I think I'll go back through and rename though.
Also most of the tools are deterministic, with the LLM's filling in gaps where there needs to be some amount of probabilistic interaction, like figuring out what you could cook given only the ingredients in your pantry, or rewriting a resume 26 million ways to satisfy the ATS filters.
If you don't want to use those features, nothing forcing you. They're useful for tracking and organizing without the LLM at all.
Yeah.. Normies for sure don't use the term "LLM". I don't think it would scare them though. They're used to being confused 💀
When I see "AI" I think "tech bro hype" whereas "LLM" makes me think the developer is more likely to have a realistic view of the technology.
I guess this depends a lot on your target demo. But but even just cutting down on usage of the exact term "AI" would help I think. Basically anything is better.
Much participated on the advice!
What I am curious about is why this should be a negative for anyone, devs who want to use AI get an easy way to filter out the people who will kick back against it, the people who will kick back against it get a quieter existence, Lemmy should be happy.
I keep seeing how having to categorise will provide a perverse incentive to not disclose and I guess I don't understand why that would be the case.
It's not like they are tricking people into buying these free programs, it's not like they are soliciting contributions from other devs (they have an AI for that), and its not like there is some sort of score being kept (besides earning some sort of credibility on Github as a pro-AI developer through that star thing I guess).
So what would be the motivation to try to trick the community into embracing these sorts of projects? Open and enthusiastic disclosure and a community push to simply move on if you find that style of development distasteful would work better for everyone.
I have walked away from using a project that was developed with AI and I didn't feel the need to slam the developer for it, I just moved on. They didn't betray my trust because they don't owe me anything, and I didn't unfairly judge their work because I don't owe them anything. Everyone's a winner.
But that's just my humble opinion.
No, because it's about the what, and with or without AI is the how.
We don't have disclosures "built on a Linux/Windows/macOS machine" or "built using IntelliJ/Eclipse" so why is it important what tool was used to do something?
Some people have serious ethical and quality concerns about AI usage in code in a way that's just irrelevant to the OS and IDE used to code it.
I understand that people have concerns, but those concerns are only relevant if they come from a maintainer or repo owner point of view. There is an entire spectrum of how AI is used in code, and it's not a simple yes or no thing. I am for example completely against vibe coding as it's just a risk and liability in the long run. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I, like other respondents, don't care if AI is used, I only care if AI was trusted.
AI is a tool to enhance a workflow, and as long as a skilled human is reviewing it and fixing it, fine.
We would be better off defining a programmer's project vs an ametuer hour vibe coded monstrosity, but that won't ever really happen.
Software has gone many decades without the need of LLM assistance, I vote to tag “Ai” and “Non-Ai” assisted posts.
+1
I think we should have an AI tag, and "not AI" should be the default (otherwise we add "non-" versions of every tag and post titles are a list of what something isn't instead of what it is).
Imo, a lot of the tools here have a high security requirement. Either because they handle personal/private information and/or are exposed to the public internet. AI use is a red flag to me that the developer hasn't properly considered all the security implications of their product.
Yes, it should. Just make it [slop] vs. no tag. Actual content shouldn't define itself by the abscence of shit.
It feels like there's been an increasing flood of AI slop projects, with varying degrees of monetization / donations. I think it'll become a huge problem if we don't have at a minimum very strict rules around AI generated slop projects. I think a mandatory tag with penalty of removal is a good bottom floor, in addition to the recent community participation activity % requirements for promoting monetized projects, which covers a good chunk of AI projects.
Then hopefully soon we can figure out as a community what to do to control the remaining volume of non-strongly-monetized AI slop projects if those are still too widespread, but having it labeled is absolutely needed transparency, and that'll still be difficult because lots of people seem to lie about not using AI.
I'd prefer a [HUMAN] tag for projects without A.I. But yes, tags would be welcome.
I mean if you do it should be a required dropdown to post since its one or the other.
No, because every developer who's worth anything these days uses AI. What you don't want is vibe-coded stuff, where the creator hasn't even looked at the code, or barely understood it. Although having said that, vibe-coded projects can be good for prototyping.
YES.
But also, we can tell. Random front-end/dashboard with an incomprehensible tech stack and feature list ? Always AI.
Y'all sound like : "Now basically the only new principle involved is that instead of power being generated by the relative motion of conductors and fluxes, it is produced by the modial interaction of magneto-reluctance and capacitive diractance."
Exactly. So if it sounds like a turbo encabulator, why so we need a tag?
Because I'm sure some of them make reasonable souding projects, but I still don't want to use them either way.
Tell me your project is trash at the outset, I'll find out anyway by reading the code, you're doing both of us a favour.
Tags don't protect against that tho , if applied honestly. And humans aren't immune from making human slop all on their own.
Spelunking the repo is 100% the answer if that's the threat model.
The tag / no tag thing can only be part of the due diligence. I argue it (at best) is neutral to that end and at worst, completely flattens the reality of code gen in 2026. Nearly 100% of code gen now touches AI somewhere.
Turbo encabulator style announcement is a much louder and more useful signal, and we already get that for free. Tag may actually end up blunting that.
view more: next ›