497
Ban AI Slop? (lemmy.ml)
submitted 2 weeks ago by [M] to c/opensource@lemmy.ml
168 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

What happens if AI gets good enough in like 5-10 years to (largely) no longer fit the created definition of slop? Do we revise the definition to be more restrictive, allow the content, or block AI content all together.

The answer to this question determines if it's really about the quality of the content or if it's more about the fact it is computer generated.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago

    We consider the issue at that time.

    Other things will also change.

    Maybe I will have thrown my computer gear in the river.

    Maybe there will be other communities who reject AI content, or others who embrace it.

    Maybe the zombie apocalypse will have arrived.

    Seriously though, it's about the quality of the content. IMO we want to avoid unsustainable projects where someone has vibe-coded some unmaintainable mess. Other long lived projects with responsible AI use are less problematic.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago* (2 children)

    You shouldn't worry about all the what ifs, you deal with the now and adjust as things change. This is a lemmy community not a government law.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (1 child)

    This was more so rhetorical to try to get to the root of why people are wanting it banned. For many, they dislike AI and are coming up with any other excuse to validate their feelings, such as "bad quality". It's a valid position on its own to just not like AI, and if that's how people feel that's what the rules should reflect. If it's truly just about quality, then it would be fine if everything was AI as long as it was high quality. I imagine most people don't want the latter, but that seems to be more what the conversion should be addressing

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago

    Fair enough. The other thing is if people hate it and want it banned on an ethical perspective, what if the AI used was selfhosted and self trained on ethically obtained data? There is no way for the end user to tell.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent