I think they should be allowed if they have actual effort and maintaining put into them, but that’s usually the problem. Most LLM projects get abandoned very fast.

This is a major difference with a project like Linux. Even if they start using slop code there, you know that they’re not going to suddenly abandon it.

Maybe we need to think out of the box, and instead of an LLM tag, we need a tag like how long the repo has existed which can be automatically checked by a bot.

If it’s not open source, remove them.

If they’re open source then the people posting them are in the right place.

A policy like what’s being suggested in the op will only be walked back in a few months.

E: also disclosure is a stupid requirement. All it does is give people something to fight over and there’s no industry accepted process for evaluating ai code as opposed to human written code, so disclosure doesnt even serve a useful purpose. It’s literally just giving people something to argue about when the hypothetical post is ostensibly about the software or what it accomplishes.

Minimum age requirement and activity requirement. If it was built all in one go it’s more likely to be abandoned and full of problems and just pollute the landscape. If it’s been under development with multiple commits over a time-span of months or a year or more it’s more likely to be higher quality, have human in the loop somewhere, continue development, patches, etc. Linux itself for example would be exempted because it has a significant age, significant recurring activity in development, multiple human developers, etc.

I do think exceptions on a case by case basis for clever simple programs that address a not previously addressed need might be fine as well. I really think there needs to be a little discretion for mod action.

What a lot of people hate and I do as well are these “look daddy I can ‘code’ too” baby’s first/second/etc vibecoded programs that people proudly toss out there without any real thought beyond pride they told an LLM to make something and it did it. Those rarely add much value, often are redundant with one another (why reinvent the wheel again and again?), and would tend to be lower quality and end up just being so much spam that makes it harder to understand what’s worthwhile.

All these “remove” votes will only accomplish developers not disclosing their use of AI 🙄 It’s very silly.

I vote to remove myself but I’d be fine with just having to state AI involvement

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.

Remove them

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

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.

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.

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.

Definitely need to remove them.

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