this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2026
122 points (93.0% liked)
Selfhosted
60074 readers
729 users here now
A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.
Rules:
-
Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
-
No spam.
-
Posts here are to be centered around self-hosting. Please ensure it is clear in your post how it relates to self-hosting.
-
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or git here. Just post the link for folks to click.
-
Submission headline should match the article title.
-
No trolling.
Resources:
- selfh.st Newsletter and index of selfhosted software and apps
- awesome-selfhosted software
- awesome-sysadmin resources
- Self-Hosted Podcast from Jupiter Broadcasting
Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.
Questions? DM the mods!
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Nominally, to avoid discrimination.
Thing is, I don't think people actually know how AI is used. At all. I think they know how AI is used to create slop.
And if they can already spot that, then why should things need to be tagged in the first place?
Do we want to see this?
Because, going by the letter of the law, there's a better than fair chance those projects have used AI - githubs own stats support that.
https://github.blog/news-insights/research/survey-ai-wave-grows/
https://survey.stackoverflow.co/2025/ai
97%. That's Github's number. In 2024.
Discrimination, that's hilarious.
Okay, let's say AI is as prevalent as you say it is. Make everyone disclose it, so that us so-called Luddites can see how ridiculous we are for trying to avoid it. And so that people who like AI software can more easily find it. Those people exist, right? Since AI is inevitable and all?
Oh you wanna snark?
Sure, let's just tag everything then. 97% of projects tagged. (I cited 2 sources to back that number up btw and I resent your implication that I made it up out of whole cloth).
Boom - done. You want all AI touched projects tagged, wish granted.
Hey, let's tag posts with [USES ELECTRICITY] too while we're at it. That'll be equally fucking useful.
People don't want an [AI] tag. They want a [SLOP] tag. Guess what - you can't have it.
Do you think slop merchants will tag their posts with [SLOP]? No?
Do you need a tag to detect slop code? No? Then what the fuck is the point of tagging anything?
[AI] and [SLOP] aren't in the same universe, and a tag can't distinguish them.
You're going to have people honestly trying to disclose AI use, only to get heckled, because Lemmy is so delightfully unbiased on anything AI.
Brilliant - that will do wonders for engagement.
What would you qualify as discrimination?
Treating a category of content as inherently suspect based on how it was made, rather than whether it's any good. Having one tag [AI] puts a giant target on the post.
Thing is, the tag isn't neutral metadata, it's a flag.
And if 97% of projects have touched AI tooling in some form (who knows how deeply), you're not tagging outliers anymore, you're tagging the norm and implying everything untagged is the clean option.
That's not curation, that's a vibe-based blacklist.
I'm for "trust, but verify" - tagged or not. And the tagging won't work because 1) what is AI coded any more 2) do you need the tag to spot slop (which is what I think people mean by [AI])
Totally. Why should anyone care about whether their clothes were made by slaves or prisoners or children? Only the tightness of the stitching and fabric is a valid measure of clothing's quality. 🙄
I'm sorry, what? Did you just equate AI use to actual child slavery?
I don't even know how to begin to respond to that.
Your analogy is irrational and frankly disgusting. Blocked.
I'll still respond for the sake of anyone else reading this. What I used was an analogy. I'm pointing out that you were dismissing the potential for moral objections to the use of AI. That is not the same as equating, but you probably know that.
You, like, other AI boosters are unable to fathom that folks' moral objections are both truly held and legitimate so you feign ignorance and shut down any critique by simultaneously clutching pearls and claiming that the thing we find morally repugnant is "inevitable." Happy to avoid future interactions. ❤
Correct, that is the reason people would support an AI tag...
Because for the vast majority of people, they don't want AI anything
But...
1000% not discrimination
"vast majority don't want AI anything" is doing a lot of work there. Do they not want AI autocomplete in the IDE? AI-assisted translation? AI-generated test cases? Because if the line is "any AI involvement," the tag eats almost everything. If it's something narrower, we're back to: define the threshold.
This is a question about trust. That's a hard problem because it assumes X is innocent, Y is guilty. I'm saying X and Y are both equally guilty (or innocent) until proven otherwise and Z (slop) can be summarily executed.
These conversations always go like "What do you mean no one wants AI? What about [crap that no one wants]? Checkmate atheists"
I'll preface by saying I'm heavily against anything LLM generated and in a perfect world we'd have a full clean divide, just so my comment can be viewed in context.
I can't speak to them all but I would not count Jellyfin as coded by AI based on their standards. Yes, people have likely used LLM "tools" to write code they submit, but they expect a human to understand the code/request, understand it's purpose, what the code is doing, and explain the PR. A human is expected to fully own the work.
There's no way to enforce that as much as I wish, but I think it's a fair distinction between what would get an [AI] tag and and [Not AI] tag. Is a human expected to fully own and understand it, or is LLM code just accepted as is without full oversight and understanding.
Fair. So we're talking about slop - and to that I agree.
Next question then becomes: does [AI] meta-tag in any way help you discern slop from non slop? There are comments and proposals in favour of it.
The counter argument is - slop is obvious...and even if it isn't (and you're going stick the thing on your own rig), you should probably do your due diligence first...which will uncover issues.
At which point, a scarlett letter isn't going to do anything useful, and may unfairly tarnish projects.
That 97% stat was from 2 years ago. It's surely higher now.
I don't think [AI] tag works, for a number of reasons, as others have identified. But the topic keeps popping up here and there, so it's worth mulling over.