AI-generated contributions are not accepted.

Pull requests, patches, documentation, translations, issues, or other contributions that are substantially generated by generative AI or large language models will not be accepted.

Contributors are expected to understand, author, and take responsibility for the work they submit. Tools such as linters, formatters, autocomplete, spellcheckers, and other non-generative development tools are unaffected by this policy.

https://github.com/pixelfed/pixelfed#ai-generated-contributions

https://github.com/joinloops/loops-server#ai-generated-contributions

We heard you! We are not accepting any AI or agentic code contributions, and will keep building Pixelfed by hand.

https://mastodon.social/@pixelfed/117350705262301318

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 2 days ago* (1 child)

Those aren't really tells for someone just doing "tweaks" like they said. Or someone using a little "AI" like google search. Etc.

Ofc there will be obvious cases but in general there's no way to detect how code has been generated - especially since there's no such thing as "AI" in the first place.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] wholookshere@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 2 days ago

My honest answer?

If someone is putting in the effort to tailor their LLM to produce results like that, I'm actually fine with.

I have yet to see an LLM thats able to do that by default. The only way you get there is have a human so close in the loop, theyre still doing the thinking work, but just not the physical typing. At least as I've seen, and I have less of a problem there.

The shelved things I have there are environmental, political, human factors, and stolen IP. Those are still fundamental blockers to me being okay with AI. But from a technical output, I dont have a problem with that limit

permalink

fedilink

source

parent