this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2026
129 points (93.3% 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
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. π
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.
Might want to stop using the slop machines and look up these words: metaphor, analogy, example
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. β€
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"