Been banned for AI-Slop on a few subs here on Lemmy as well as on Reddit.
I always provide a good amount of technical detail in my posts and i try to be as transparant and communicative about the details. My projects are very complicated and I try to document them well.
my project is pretty cryptography-heavy... the act of me sharing my efforts in an attempt to show transparency... but it is used against my project by calling it AI-slop (undermining Kerkhoff's principles).
It's 2026 and most developers are using AI. I have used it to create things like formal proof and verification.
my project is aimed to be a secure messaging app. i have all the bells-and-whistles there along with documentation.... but if the conversation cant move past "its AI-generated"... then it seems the cryptography/cybersecurity/privacy community isnt aligned with the fact that using AI is now common practice for developers of all levels.
AI is a tool. you cant (and shouldnt) "trust" AI to do anything without oversight. AI does not replace the due-diligence that has always been needed. i dont "trust" my hammer to bash in a nail... i "use" the hammer. AI is not different in how you need to be responsible for how its used.
i've busted my ass on my project for it to be called AI slop. i think its completely fine when it comes from folks in the community. cryptography is a serious subject and my ideas and implementation SHOULD/MUST be scrutinised... but its simply ignorant if mods are banning me for the quality of my work considering the the level of transparency and my engagement on discussions about it.
It's a bit reductive to call it slop. I think i try harder than most in providing links, code and documentation. Of course I used AI... and it's clearer for it. (you can find more detail on my profile)
i am of course sour from being banned, but am i wrong to think my code isnt AI slop? Some parts of my project are clearly lazy-ui... but im not sharing on some UI/UX/design sub. the cryptography module has unit tests and formal verification. if that is AI-slop and can result in me being banned, i simply dont have faith in that community to be objective on the reality of where AI can contribute.
while its understandable people dont want to review AI-slop... i think the cryptography/cybersecurity community needs to get on board with the idea of using AI to help in reviewing such code. am i wrong? is the future of cryptography is still people performing manual review of the breathtaking volumes of AI code?
You might be expecting too much nuance from online communities. It's easy and fun to oversimplify and dunk on a perceived common enemy. Lemmy has a very AI critical community. I imagine on reddit you might get less backlash, at least depending on the community. You might also find more AI friendly places here. In any case, trying to fight against a community bias is often a fools errand. I'm sure your code isn't slop, but I don't think you'll be able to change the minds of random, biased people on the internet with no incentive to really listen to you anyways.
I'm sure you already know all the reasons why people are against AI and are sick of having to defend yourself. Still, I want to add that even if you use AI as a tool instead of vibe-coding, as a consumer I wouldn't trust any privacy/security critical software that's developed with the use of AI. As a layman I can't check how secure your software is, so I have to rely on simple signifiers to make my judgements. At this point in time, AI is a red flag for me for security reasons alone. I know it's not "fair" or "accurate", but I don't have the time and knowledge to individually check every software to that extend. I know allegedly every programmer now uses AI in some form to code (I personally don't and most people I know don't either, but I'm sure it's just my bubble), but it's not a sign of quality code in my mind.
Another thing I want to add is that your hammer comparison should probably include how the hammer was produced and how much resources your hammer consumes to function. There is a strong ethical argument against the use of AI for most use cases. I'd include coding and code reviews. Again, that doesn't make your code slop, but it might help you understand why so many people are ready to dismiss it as that.