remove

Depends on the definition. If we go by the definition a lot of users here seem to have, Linux itself would no longer be considered a FOSS project, which imo is completely ridiculous.

If we're talking about literally vibe coded from the ground up projects where the devs don't even know what the code inside looks like, yes maybe it should be removed or given a post tag once we have the feature.

Personally I prefer to keep a discussion going even with heavy AI coded projects, we're living in interesting times and I am convinced to keep an open mind about what engineering will look like going forward and what doors it might open for the FOSS community despite its flaws and negatives.

Require an AI tag for anything written in part or in whole by AI.

I'm assuming the majority of posts are slop now, there are a couple of dedicated opensourceai subreddits, I would prefer such a thing existed here as well, with a blanket ban in this one.

Depends on how much effort is put into them and how useful they are

Very hard question. I think, idk. For me Open Source isn't AI so i think remove it because it makes /c/opensource less attractive and worse but some things like about Craft i think it can be but i'am not moderator so i think ban it completely or most of it.

Maybe a slopscore bot comment on any post that links to a repo?

I'm gonna agree with others that there need to be standards not a blanket ban. I'd leave it up to the admins/mods what those are. Because getting too granular with it wold be hard to enforce. You guys pick something you feel is reasonable and will cut down on 0 effort slop but also allows you to enforce things without digging through the minutia of every post.

Remove them. There's nothing "open source" about the outputs of your black box text generator

How about making a rule that it is at least six months old and in continued development? This would filter out most slop.

I advocate for a disclosure, blanket removal feels like censorship; even vibe coded slop is a project that might generate interest if it was made to solve some problem or showcase a new frontier, nature of OSS will push the slop out of the project eventually.

When I say "slop", I refer to a huge codebase that does what it advertise but has no documentation on what it does internally and the primary poster cannot adequately explain what it does(code mudball esentially). but if its well documented and looks like it was put together with care, with rhyme and reason than I will defend against calling it slop

We had Slop before AI. we just called "shit".

If a coder wants to shit out a project that never works and never patches it? I want them to notice the culture and know better.

If someone is learning, using the tools they have available, and shows a commitment to maintain their project? I want to see their work. I wanna see them get help from the community to be more literate in their own project, and in the full toolset they're using.

Most of these vibecoded submissions are the former. Thank you for removing the fecalware. If the community decides it needs to remove AI at all to keep this up? Eh, there's dbzer0.

I am going to go the other way and say the more, the merrier. I like to see new and interesting things that someone did to scratch an itch or solve a problem. I may not use it or agree with how they developed it or the license they chose, etc., but I still like seeing the posts about it.

disclosure + a tag so they can be filtered out for those that want to (actually does Lemmy support that? I'm not sure)

AI slop & AI code is very different. If its just pure vibe coded slop with no oversight or effort, then sure its just junk, remove it.

But a lot of experienced developers now use AI tooling to increase productivity, just because AI was used in the process should be consider it slop?

Remove them. If you can't ensure you own all the code written you can't make it open source. It's not yours to license.

I hope it's not allowed here

I think requiring AI disclosure like how !selfhosted@lemmy.world does is a good approach. Not all projects rely as heavily on LLMs as others.

Rule 1 says Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology

I don't think any ai projects can claim to be that when their copyright status is debatable and the tooling is worse with how closed their training is.

Definitely need to remove them.

Removed. AI is fundamentally anti open-source.

I think a disclosure at least in the title of the post should be required. But only if the software is known to be not slop at all. The problem with this approach is, that everyone has their own threshold and definition of what slop means, or are misinformed about the project. Overall I do not think it's a good idea to ban any Ai contributed or assisted project.

Disclosure. If LLMs are used in service of open-source projects, then they are relevant, but clearly many in the community feel that to be negative, and therefore there should be a disclosure. Someone can make open source software using closed-source tooling already, so disallowing one form of tooling entirely is letting a moral reaction interfere with how we understand open source.

Linux would have to be removed from discussion, for example, if all LLM-contributed projects were to be disallowed. I don't see why rules should be made with explicit exceptions in mind, yet excluding Linux cuts out a huge portion of open source discussion.

I vote remove

I've recently been pondering the future impact of AI on coding, while trying to filter out the current noise surrounding the issue (since all it does is muddy the waters). There's a lot of amateurish supposition to follow, but since you appear to be getting fewer thought out responses than "AI-bad-kill", take it with a pinch of salt.

There was a recent article on the open source software that props up the internet - (paraphrasing here) one of these repositories had (pre-AI) a user called Jin Yue or Jin Yin who made hundreds of useful pull requests, gained the trust of the repo maintainer and was eventually given admin privileges, only to surrepticiously merge malicious code when no one was looking (eventually discovered ~a month after the fact). I imagine that (likely) state-sponsored attempts like these will make more use of AI in the future for quicker turnaround, and that maintainers will also eventually use AI to quickly audit submitted code for security flaws.

As far as open source software channels are concerned, I imagine there will be a decent amount of low effort malicious software that makes heavy use of AI, submitted to these channels. In such an environment, whether or not users are permitted to candidly disclose AI usage without reprisal will likely make a huge difference, since honest disclosure would invite security-minded people to audit fault-prone AI-assisted code - something that malware distributers will try to avoid at all costs (thereby allowing a distinction that can be leveraged to form between the two).

Just my two cents.

Remove, and suggest they go start an AI software community. We can't be monsters to people who might not know better.

I would say to just require them to be tagged, but the volume of them seems quite high. Might be better to just ban them and they can create a separate community.

Remove them. There could be another community for slop.

Not calling it slop might help get less biased answers.

Remove them!

Remove. Perhaps there's another community interested in AI hobby projects, but most of these seem like listening to someone's dreams, and are not very interesting.

Disclosure

From my perspective "slopcode/vibecode" means entirely (or mostly) generated, which is different than a human-maintained project that includes bits of generated code. As a rule I'm very skeptical of the former and give the benefit of the doubt to the latter especially if it's an established project.

I'd be fine with removal or mandatory disclosure, but the latter would probably be easier to implement if there was a way to filter them out.

Remove them, let them create their own "AISoftware" community.

i would suggest disclosures or have a project working for some time, with resolved issues etc (showing some level of involvement by alleged developer), to filter out complete bs with unknown caliber of shittiness, ai contributions will continue to grow.

ai-vibe coded photoshop by artcraft is (a) hilarious (b) still net good if it doesn't leak like mad. if somebody vibecodes opensource office (not libre, but fully compatible with microsoft word), it would be worthy project to highlight for sheer balls.

I think it should allow AI coded projects.

AI code is a QA problem.

I've seen an opensource project (amule) being revived with AI, but there's extensive testing before the PRs are merged and the project seems to be working pretty fine.

Btw, I use AI a lot to configure my emacs init.el file :-D

The question is how opensource is AI model which has been used for these creations? Are datasets available somewhere?

I don't think restricting what people can post is a good idea if you are looking to grow a community

I'd like to keep them, but properly identified as such. As much as I don't prefer it, without it there would be projects that wouldn't be attempted.

They are also used by proper developers that know what they do and they just need specific parts done, which they'll review anyway.

So... Keep them. Identified, but keep them.

Keep them but perhaps ask for #ai tags in titel, so those not wanting them can scroll past them.

All these new apps/software announcements will just get better and better, and if they are open source, they clearly fall in under this sub. At some point most users will have their own agents that can add or improve these new projects as they see fit, so let si oss be shown here as normal.

There are already super cool vibe coded open source software, and let's be honest, not all hooman software is great, so why not ban shitty hooman software/coders while we are at it? Oc not - oss is oss no matter how its made, even if the description sounds like an ai, or it's not always maintained.

In the near future, pure hooman coded open source will become more and more rare, so those interested in non-ai open source should start new sub's for their special wants instead of posing restrictions on what is becoming the new normal.

I would say if the post itself is entirely AI generated I'm not interested. If it's a human post talking about a project created with AI I don't mind so much.