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?
Yes, [AI] should be mandatory. No need for the other one, that’s just the standard.
I agree with others who said AI tag for AI helped projects, no tags for normal projects.
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 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.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.
Software has gone many decades without the need of LLM assistance, I vote to tag “Ai” and “Non-Ai” assisted posts.
+1
