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.
imo this community should have a rule against posts promoting new primarily-written-with-an-LLM software projects. as an admin, i’ve deleted a few myself when there are reports of them and the mods aren’t resolving them.
banning all AI-assisted software is obviously no longer reasonable now that many large and old projects are using it (with varying levels of care…) but I don’t think we actually need a very firm definition of “slop” to be able to say some things clearly are slop and some AI-involved things clearly aren’t. When in doubt about if something is of sufficient quality that we should keep it here, the age of the project and the number of developers involved are useful secondary metrics.
@[email protected] created a new community which I think should be linked in the sidebar here as an alternate place for sharing these things. How about this for a rule (in the [email protected] sidebar)?
This is not a place to promote new single-developer heavily-AI-assisted projects. Another community exists for sharing AI-Assisted Libre Software: [email protected]
note that the word “slop” is intentionally absent from my proposed rule (and from name and description of the community) - the point is that this is a place for people to share their AI-created software, regardless of if it is 100% vibe coded or is actually high-quality “agentic engineering” - only time, review, and users will ultimately tell which category many of these new things fall into. But enough of it is slop that we shouldn’t have this community flooded with it, imo.
… but I don’t think we actually need a very firm definition of “slop” to be able to say some things clearly are slop and some AI-involved things clearly aren’t. When in doubt about if something is of sufficient quality that we should keep it here, the age of the project and the number of developers involved are useful secondary metrics…this is not a place to promote new single-developer heavily-AI-assisted projects. Another community exists for sharing AI-Assisted Libre Software: [email protected] note that the word “slop” is intentionally absent from my proposed rule (and from name and description of the community)
Curious. Woke up to find my post removed at almost exactly the same time you posted this, complete with an accusation of “slop”.
The post had 31 upvotes, a 98% positive vote ratio and genuine discussion, for a project with a 6 month history behind it and a freshly repopulated repo. That doesn’t read like an unwelcome contribution.
To be clear, I’m not asking nor am interested in reinstatement of it.
Speaking plainly, !aials appears to be a tar pit for projects the mods deem guilty until proved innocent. Cool - your room, your rules.
But I suspect this approach will lead you exactly here:
https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/78050871/29108982
IMESHO, there may be some merit in approaching things the way !selfhosted does, vis-a-vis [AIP], [CBH] tags.
- Hint - AI suggested solution, human does the task.
- Assisted - AI acts on part of a task, but a human handled the bulk.
- Pair - About a 50/50 split of human made and generated.
- Generated - Human prompted, AI generated
There’s a significant difference between those categories and a catch all rule that assumes the worst. The latter leads to things like this. The proxy signals you’re proposing would have tar-pitted something like the venerable cURL if it had come out today and been accused of “slopware” (whatever that means).
Curious. Woke up to find my post removed at almost exactly the same time you posted this, complete with an accusation of “slop”.
yes, after a brief assessment i concluded (correctly, i see now after taking another look at it) that your project is exactly the kind of new, single-developer, vibe-coded slop which i think we should not accept the promotion of here… and yes, seeing and deleting your post was what reminded me that i’ve been meaning to post something in this thread.
however, after i deleted it for being slop, i also noticed another reason it is not suitable for this community: as @[email protected] helpfully pointed out in the comments, your README says this:
To that end, I’m publishing the current 32.71 source code and final release, with the source code frozen at this version.
Download the APKs from the SmartTube LOCAL GitHub Releases page.
I’ll continue to publish updated APKs as I hatch them.
So, it isn’t even an open source project going forward: the released source code is “frozen” and future versions will be binary-only? so, in this case you actually shouldn’t post this in the [email protected] community either 🤦
fwiw i am personally not completely opposed to AI-assisted coding; i am also doing some of it myself. however i think everyone should be skeptical of new single-developer vibe-coded projects - most are very low quality and will be abandoned in the near future.
The latter leads to things like this.
This is exactly what the new community is meant to address: to have a place for people to share their AI-created softwares without getting a flood of hate for it being made with AI.
Yes, after a brief assessment i concluded (correctly, i see now after taking another look at it) that your project is exactly the kind of new, single-developer, vibe-coded slop which i think we should not accept the promotion of here
A brief assessment indeed. Dare I say, a perfunctory one.
You claim to have assessed the project, then taken another look, but provide no technical findings. Tell me then, specifically, what defects, security problems, unreliable features or examples of poor code did you find?
Or did you just decide “fresh-looking repo, one dev, disclosed AI, therefore slop”?
In your earlier remarks, you argued that no firm definition of “slop” was necessary. Yet you remain remarkably vibes-based about what constitutes it. Surely, during your extensive twice-over assessment, you would have noticed that SmartTube LOCAL is a fork of an established project, not something generated wholesale from a prompt?
My additions include about 5,000 lines in new source files, plus minor modifications to existing code, across 6-8 months of development. The overwhelming majority of the codebase remains upstream SmartTube and its dependencies.
The new functionality includes local profiles, local subscriptions, playlist imports and offline playback from SMB shares. I’ve tested actual builds on multiple TVs, including offline operation without internet access.
I reviewed the code by hand, tested it myself, rewrote parts of it and iterated upon the results.
None of this proves the code is perfect. It does, however, suggest something rather more substantial to assess than the age of a GitHub repository.
So, it isn’t even an open source project going forward: the released source code is “frozen” and future versions will be binary-only?
The public repository contains source code, build files and an MIT licence that preserves the original SmartTube copyright notice.
The published 32.71 source code is open source. Anyone can inspect, modify, redistribute or fork it. In fact, I specifically encourage people to do so in the README.
The MIT licence also permits binary-only distribution of MIT-licensed code, subject to its notice requirements. That doesn’t make a future binary-only build open source, but neither does it invalidate the existing release.
I won’t push every intermediate source revision to GitHub. The project is maintained privately on self hosted Forgejo, and preparing a clean public release means sanitising code, separating unfinished features and removing private configuration and internal CI/CD tooling.
That adds to my workload without much benefit to the people I support.
I’m perfectly happy to publish updated source code with the next major revision, which I’m working on slowly.
So, while you might reasonably argue that my README was poorly worded, there’s rather a large difference between not publishing every intermediate source revision and permanently withholding source code for all future releases.
To be frank, you appear to be set on pre-punishing a solo developer for sharing a family-and-friends project based on a rather cursory examination. Doesn’t that run somewhat contrary to the spirit of FOSS?
i am personally not completely opposed to AI-assisted coding; i am also doing some of it myself.
Great. And yet you readily throw around “slop” as an invective and propose that new, heavily AI-assisted solo projects be relegated to [email protected], regardless of their actual quality.
I’m sure you see the disconnect.
You also suggest that most new solo AI-assisted projects are low quality and likely to be abandoned.
That’s a generalisation, not an assessment of the project I posted.
I’ve publicly discussed SmartTube LOCAL’s progress on the upstream SmartTube Show and Tell forum since September, with further updates in October.
The repository is new because I repopulated it from my private development tree. Its creation date does not reflect the age of the project.
Time in development alone doesn’t prove that SmartTube LOCAL is high quality. Equally, one developer and a new public repository don’t prove that it is poor quality.
Which takes us full circle to your proposed secondary metrics. Project age and developer count might indicate maturity or maintenance risk, but neither establishes code quality. A young project can be well engineered, and an old one can be dreadful.
This is exactly what the new community is meant to address: to have a place for people to share their AI-created softwares without getting a flood of hate for it being made with AI.
There’s a certain irony here I’d like to comment on.
You’ve now publicly called my project “slop” twice, without identifying a single technical defect, while advocating a separate community to protect AI-assisted developers from precisely that sort of hostility.
I’m not opposed to !aials existing. It might become a genuinely useful community for people who use AI in software development.
But presenting it as a refuge from hostility while dismissing projects as “slop” without demonstrating what’s wrong with them or what “slop” is rather undermines the sentiment.
As I said, I’m not asking you to reinstate my post. Your community, your rules.
But if you’re going to dismiss someone’s work as “slop” after two looks at the project, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask you to explain what, specifically, is wrong with it.
Otherwise, this is precisely the “guilty until proven innocent” approach I mentioned earlier.
I don’t really want to become the judge of what is “heavily-AI-assisted”. I think if I were to write a rule I would focus more on self-promotion in general than trying to decide how AI assisted it was. For example something like this:
This community should not be primarily used for self-promotion. You should be contributing to the community before posting any of your own work and a small fraction of your submissions should be your own work.
As for slop or not I would generally rather rely on user votes to decide if it is “worth it” or not. But maybe that is unsustainable and we will need more of a rule. I do think that if you ask a robot to write you a project in 3 days then post it here it is probably not adding much value.
I’m open to discussion though.
I don’t really want to become the judge of what is “heavily-AI-assisted”.
imo it doesn’t really take much in the way of judgement; usually it is pretty obvious when there is one developer and the README is written in LLM voice and the project is a few weeks or days old.
I think if I were to write a rule I would focus more on self-promotion in general than trying to decide how AI assisted it was
I think that would also be a good rule, but wouldn’t stop people from promoting others’ slop or from promoting their own while pretending it isn’t.
I would generally rather rely on user votes to decide if it is “worth it” or not
unfortunately there are sometimes cases (such as the post i deleted here yesterday) where a post will have mostly upvotes despite being not-even-open-source. there are also things which are freely licensed, but get many upvotes despite being absurdly bad vibe-coded ideas - eg, this centralized IPFS web directory making contradictory privacy claims 🫠 (imo that should be deleted; what do you think?)
usually it is pretty obvious when there is one developer and the README is written in LLM voice and the project is a few weeks or days old
Yes, the problem comes when you enter the grey area. Maybe the README is at least mostly written by hand and the project has two developers.
wouldn’t stop people from promoting others’ slop
I’m not too worried about this to be honest. If someone found someone else’s slop useful and is promoting it of their own volition (not paid, bot, requested, …) then I think having these submitted occasionally isn’t much harm.
promoting their own while pretending it isn’t.
Yes, this is a risk. I think in most cases it is pretty obvious but a rule won’t stop sneaky people. I still feel that I would be happy to start here and see how it goes.
imo that should be deleted; what do you think?
I’m on the fence. It is open source and there is a bit of discussion and upvotes seem deliberate. This user has also contributed to the community in the past and while often around the topics of this project has been discussing in very general ways and has found the interest of others. I don’t think this post is a huge boon to the community but I don’t think it is very harmful and not against the rules so I would be inclined to leave it. I think I would consider this one of their few allowed self-promotion posts and expect no more (assuming we adopted a rule like that).
But I think there are problems with upvotes. Most notably that I suspect the majority of people upvote “interesting” things from their home feed without considering what community it is in. That being said low-effort AI generated projects often don’t get very much “interest” as long as the user reads past the title.
Yeah I don’t think we need slop projects being posted here. I know a lot of people are using these tools even for personal projects nowadays but tbh I’m not really interested in exploring any project heavily written by AI.
I’m conflicted. I’m anti-AI due to distrust in capitalism and our pseudo-democratic plutocracies, the profit motive to replace the human workforce, the reckless criminal-incompetence of its implementation, and apparent stupidity of the average hairless primate in understanding that you can never trust a correlation engine… but it’s just a tool, and I’ve also found it incredibly useful in my limited and controlled usage; getting it to write small functions or blocks of code, then amending and composing them myself.
How do we determine what is “heavily written by ai”, and all the obvious slop factory bullshit, without banning strong projects who are just leveraging it for legitimate dev work; as a glorified autocomplete, test autofill, etc but still read and validate every line of code?
Like most people, I’m finding it increasingly difficult to find trustworthy projects amongst the see of amateur slop, but I think banning it out-right would likely result in many false positives, and ultimately be counter-productive.
As much as I don’t want to depend on metrics, I think a better approach would be to define a bunch of heuristics based on historically-competent projects. Things like defining an upper limit based on LoC vs commit time and number of devs, project age, etc. Ultimately I feel the industry should do what cybersecurity should be doing; moving to some sort of cryptograhically-verified social trust model where engineers/professionals have to build trust in the real world, and take turns in “vouching” for projects and code releases.
the problem with “just a tool” is that using it will inherently change how you act.
Best concise way i can put it is that it’s like how better hardware has largely just resulted in software not really caring about efficiency any longer.Sure, but should we then ban any open source that doesn’t run in 10MB or less of memory?
It is just a tool, but human nature makes it a net negative. There are a lot of tools like that, and history shows that once the cat is out of the bag, humanity just has to live with the damage that tool causes. There’s literally nothing that can be done to stop it on a large scale, but small communities can always dictate what they will tolerate.
I’m anti-AI due to distrust in capitalism and our pseudo-democratic plutocracies, the profit motive to replace the human workforce, the reckless criminal-incompetence of its implementation, and apparent stupidity of the average hairless primate in understanding that you can never trust a correlation engine… but it’s just a tool
Doesn’t that whole preamble prove that “AI” isn’t in fact just a tool? Or rather, that it’s a tool designed for all the wrong things? There’s a well known Audre Lorde quote that springs to mind.
Yeah, exactly.
As someone who has been working on a large open source project for literally years, while trying to support a family, the hardest thing is time to devote to this project (which, absent capitalism, is what I’d spend my life doing).
AI can allow me to instead increase the speed at which I’m delivering the project I’d already architected, designed, and laid out with my other devs. I don’t have the money to pay myself to work on it, much less other devs - and my bank doesn’t take repo stars as mortgage payments unfortunately.
I hate the AI industry - but that’s a problem with the economics, not the tool.
I’m happy to label that my project uses AI assistance, but bans just make me realize that wherever is banning it isn’t more concerned with shipping a solution instead of a crusade against LLMs.
“distrust in capitalism and our pseudo-democratic plutocracies, the profit motive to replace the human workforce, the reckless criminal-incompetence of its implementation, and apparent stupidity of the average hairless primate”
I have hair, thank you very much, but seriously get out of my head. The hubris these days is unbelievable.
I’m fine with AI. I’m not fine with slop. Ban slop, not LLMs.
Fair enough, I don’t have said decades of experience
A perfect example of a tool used responsibly vs a tool in the hands of an idiot. There’s nothing that can be done to make idiots stop idioting.
You are the same.
LLMs are slop.
- 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.
There’s some nuance for sure, but personally I’m a lot less interested in heavily LLM-programmed projects
that’s completely fair - would labeling then be ideal for you?
Sure yeah, that could be enough
label them as trash
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.
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
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.
This is one of the hardest Dunning Kruger posts I’ve seen in a while. You have complete confidence in an opinion that you have zero comprehension of.
Well, fuck… how could I possibly win such a well-versed argument like that?!
No, you!
Sorry about the downvotes, Lemmy has a big coding community (naturally, in this comm), and that seems to be the sector where people are the most hypocritical about “AI” usage.
This was a problem in [email protected] and they’ve done a good job of dealing with it. You could take a look at that past discussion to see what worked / what didn’t.
IMO there is an organized effort behind some of these new accounts pushing AI projects, and you need to deal with it in some form to stop them from coming
Agreed. TLDR, you must tag posts there with the following:
Post Tagging
There are three types of tags for project promotional / AI posts.
- [CBH] - Code By Human - A project promotional post with a project that did not use AI in any capacity. No disclosure necessary.
- [AIP] - AI Project - A project promotional post with a project that used AI in development in any capacity. Disclosure is required for how it was used.
- [AIT] - AI Topic - A discussion topic that includes AI. This may be for a discussion on hardware to self-host on, llama.cpp vs ollama, your experience using vulkan, etc.
Thanks for sharing this. Maybe correct tagging could be useful. Makes it easier to ignore but not overly heavy and possibly toxic.
Thanks for sharing this. Maybe correct tagging could be useful. Makes it easier to ignore but not overly heavy and possibly toxic.
If i am just posting these projects i found which i think are interesting (which i did a lot of). i am now suppose to spend more of my spare time researching if they include AI? I am pretty sure i won’t be able to know most of the time .
There are not a a lot of projects i think people will be interested enough to do a “high effort evaluation”. if anyone is that interested he can just ask, or check out the code which should be fairly rare.
AI has been here for a while. If it would have caused FOSS communities to be flooded by AI it probably would have happened by now. We should try and avoid the bias of risk aversion.
Looking at AI . it reminds me of how for wayland there was constant criticism even if it was just plain wrong and just made people overly scared . the plain wrong stuff was highly upvoted and i didn’t always have time to correct it, plus people being disrespectful discouraged me from discussing it because i didn’t feel it will be productive . now wayland is pretty much accepted as “good” by most of the FOSS social media communities in my experience. when a new technology appears. it takes time and effort to study it deeply and it’s advantages and disadvantages . And i suspect people in social media are often not the first to do that honestly.
On /c/selfhosted, you share someone else’s project without the disclosure. Age of account requirement is still there, though, has to be at least 30 days old.
If youre aware of some level of ai involvement when posting, its encouraged to mention. If they have an ai disclosure in their repo and you link it, even better.
But since its impossible for a 3rd party to know development details, disclosure doesn’t apply. Assuming something similar is done here, that wouldn’t be a concern.
Okay, then don’t post these projects if you’re not sure and don’t want to find out.
@[email protected] if you have any questions on those rules, please let me know.
The disclosure was needed because there is a wide variety of LLM use, which you can see in the explanation post as well. There is a rather wide difference between “I used an LLM to summarize my changes in the readme” and “I generated everything here from a single prompt”.
The disclosure addresses that part, while the tags allow people to choose what to interact with or what to filter.
I supported this solution there and support it here.
Both the Linux Foundation and the EFF have permissive policies towards AI generated code, even Linus Torvalds accepts it as a tool.
Some FOSS projects that have AI generated code in it:
- The Linux kernel
- Fedora
- Mesa 3D
- Jellyfin
- Firefox
- Chromium
- Homebrew
- OpenSSL
- FFmpeg
- Curl
Should we ban them all? If so, this community would be either dead soon OR it would be hypocritical.
Or because they started pre-AI it’s ok now? Shouldn’t we care more about disclosure, policies, licensing, code quality and maintainability?
Users should downvote crappy software and crappy devs, regardless of the tool it was written with.
Experienced developers using AI as a tool and properly understanding their code base are not slop.
AI slop is when someone with no software development experience prompts a piece of software into existence without any understanding of how that piece of software actually works. The project’s are usually heavily pushed by their creators in the initial couple of weeks of creation but are then quickly abandoned when the creator finally realizes neither they nor their AI can maintain the project. Essentially these kinds of projects flood the internet with low quality abandonware.
A newly created open source project coded using AI would be fine if the creators could prove that they understand how to maintain the project and keep it going beyond the initially promoted code and that kind of proof can only come with time.
The big problem is the sheer volume of low quality projects that get abandoned will cause the projects that actually have potential to become needles in haystacks.
A newly created open source project coded using AI would be fine if the creators could prove that they understand how to maintain the project and keep it going beyond the initially promoted code and that kind of proof can only come with time.
Prove to whom, and why? Who entitles anyone to demand “proof of investment” for a piece of work they have zero contribution to?
The big problem is the sheer volume of low quality projects that get abandoned will cause the projects that actually have potential to become needles in haystacks.
They already are. I don’t have numbers, but pretty sure the ratio between useful and useless repos on github is… Not high
Proof to the future user-base they are trying to attract by posting about their project. Proof to the community they are trying to be part of that they are not wasting everyone’s time.
Before posting about your project just show that you are making an effort to maintain it, show that you’re willing to engage with people and not just pass everyone’s questions into an LLM and regurgitate the response.
Don’t foster engagement if you’re not going to do the bare minimum to maintain the project.
Yes there are tons of repos out there that don’t deserve any attention from the community, not just AI slop. But there are far more AI slop projects being posted to communities online where the project is instantly abandoned.
even Linus Torvalds
He made his choice, that doesn’t make him right, regardless of who he is, or who he thinks he is.
ai as it is now, owned by the people who own it, pushed by the people who push it, is the exact opposite of the linux philosophy for me. If I wanted microslop, I would still be using it.
Never in my life have I wanted to read about or use an AI slop project.
I am convinced that, with the right tools, it’s possible to damage 40 years of work within a few weeks.
I for one would really appreciate just one single FLOSS community that flat out banned any and all “AI” contributed code instead of following the approach of others. Somebody have the spine to stand out, plz.
I’m not a developer, but I wanna be able to keep up with open source news without having to navigate a slippery slop(e) into clanker dominated territory.
The Zig language has a no AI contributions policy. That’s for the language itself, but a lot of it’s community have similar views.
Codeberg has a no AI policy for projects hosted on its servers, so anything hosted there should meet your requirements.
I was talking about Lemmy communities, but yeah.
That restriction would rule out Linux. Would that be OK?
There are plenty of Linux communities already 🤷
Linus snr suggested that someone should fork the kernel if they want no ai. Fingers crossed that it happens.
Agreed, I really want to see this for linux distros and desktop environments, the list is far too small, and far too niche at present.
I would support such a ban so long as there is some process to prevent it becoming a witch hunt.
I have personally already received one false accusation of using AI in this community and I wouldn’t want to continue posting projects here if it becomes an atmosphere of suspicion.
Yes, this is my main concern with a proposal. The obvious cases are obvious enough but it is possible to mostly hide and the grey area is a huge smear. I don’t want to be sifting through tons of reports and I definitely don’t want people being accused (often aggressively) either in threads or privately.
One? I’ve received three. It seems you have to dumb down your responses, and add some intentional typos if you don’t want the mob after you lately.
Maybe we use AI to detect the bad AI, and then blame that AI when it doesn’t work?
Why any efforts to blame? No need to blame Ai. Just use an Ai that blames other failing Ai. Modern problems require modern solution.
Yes please. It’s dispiriting to regularly go through the cycle of seeing an interesting project pop up here, oh wait it’s vibe-coded crap, nevermind…
At a bare minimum, it would be nice for users to tag their projects accordingly. You could, with a glance, realize there wouldn’t be a point in investing your time/energy into a project that the creator had less investment in, themselves.
yeah, I’ve since seen the suggestion for enforced tagging in the top comment, and I agree that it could be a good solution for allowing users to decide for themselves if they want to engage
That seems to be the standard for everything else. Anything generated by AI should have a disclaimer.
I think one of the appealing traits of open source is that you can identify what piece of software and hardware does what (and how, if you’re interested). You can post your exact method, and another person can follow along and replicate the result.
But if AI tells you how to build everything, you don’t get the opportunity to learn, and your stack depends on what that particular model thought was best on that particular day. Maintenance also becomes harder if you just did a
sudo apt install whatever Claude told me towithout knowing what everything does and how it interactsU also like that for small private projects you can literally contact the developer for questions/suggestions/comments. There is no point if all they did was ask Claude
The worst is when you see something you’re curious about and ask for clarification, and they just paste your question into the LLM and paste its response back to you.
its like bro I can do that if I want
We allow it on our large subreddits on reddit. What we do is use a bot to filter repos that are less than 3 months old.
People who vibe code slop just want to share their thing and then abandon it. A limit like that or even 6 months will kill majority of this sort of low effort crap. Most of these people just let Claude or whatever sign the repo as well, another easy way to catch slop.
Developers that develop and only use AI as a tool build great products still as they review all their code.
A blanket ban is just going to make people be more sneaky.
Just ban low effort content, AI or human made slop both count and have no value.
What about high effort slop? Seems like a new category that’s growing unfortunately…
Vibe coded code whose “author” understands the language and actively challenges the agent for his decisions in the interest of long term window is OK. Vibe coded coded that are one-off without any future prospects should be 100% banned.
I’m in favor just requiring AI-generated code to be tagged in some obvious place in the post. If there’s a full restriction on it, I think quite a few people would just try to hide the fact that it was vibe-coded and post anyway,
Yes. They are useless. Get rid of them.
