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 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.

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.

Remove them!

Not calling it slop might help get less biased answers.

Disclosure

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

• I think AI disclosure has to be a hard rule. Not done properly? Remove.
• I think there has to be a threshold of when to allow, otherwise we'll get (and are already) overwhelmed. For example, be X months old is an easy check that would filter out low-effort posting.

Besides these basic rules that I think are absolutely mandatory, I'm not sure how far to go. I'd want to say that the project needs to explain Free Software affinity or explain why it's posted on lemmy or something like that... But it's so easy to fake it with, the irony of it, AI texts.

In conclusion,

• Decision-wise, I wouldn't mind if the resolution is the full removal on AI-driven projects.
• Decision-wise, I would absolutely request a hard-ban if the lemmy text is AI-written.
• Decision-wise, I could accept if the rule is to accept some small sliver of AI posts that would come our way otherwise. Maybe some projects where AI assists in writing code, but does not replace the programmer. Maybe that is OK, if the project otherwise is "relevant to the open source ideology" (Rule 1 of this community).

EDIT: Also, something to think about is... community, not just code. For community health, it might be better to remove AI-driven projects entirely. Because we aren't just about code. We're also about continuing to exist long-term.

EDIT 2: I think codeberg actually did it better than my improvised thinking. I'd go with codeberg's rules: https://blog.codeberg.org/protecting-our-floss-commons-from-llms.html

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.

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.

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

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

There's no such thing as "AI". Nothing to disclose.

Even if there were something to disclose, people don't know how much of their dependencies were computer generated. It's a purity test.

But all apps should be vetted for malware, etc.

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.

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.

Removed. AI is fundamentally anti open-source.

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

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.

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

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 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

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.