this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2026
345 points (95.5% liked)

Selfhosted

60281 readers
539 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:

Detailed Rules Post

  1. Be civil.

  2. No spam.

  3. Posts are to be related to self-hosting.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or readme if you're providing a link.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title.

  6. No trolling.

  7. Promotion posts require active participation, with an account that is at least 30 days old. F/LOSS without a paywall has exceptions, with requirements. See the rules link for details.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
ruud@lemmy.world
Loki@lemmy.world
CannaVet@lemmy.world
devve@lemmy.world
ayyy@sh.itjust.works
curbstickle@anarchist.nexus
curbstickle_lw@lemmy.world
345
[META] Should AI disclosure tags [AI], [NOT AI] be mandated when sharing projects? (aussie.zone)
submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by SuspiciousCarrot78@aussie.zone to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world
155 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Based on recent comments this feels like a discussion we should have. So..topic, basically.

I'm not looking to be chief noisemaker on this, but I stand by what I wrote in !privacy and what's in my post history.

https://lemmy.ml/post/48724623/26190950

Let's have at; do we want a [AI] and [NOT AI] tag. Why or why not?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] shads@lemy.lol 7 points 5 days ago

What I am curious about is why this should be a negative for anyone, devs who want to use AI get an easy way to filter out the people who will kick back against it, the people who will kick back against it get a quieter existence, Lemmy should be happy.

I keep seeing how having to categorise will provide a perverse incentive to not disclose and I guess I don't understand why that would be the case.

It's not like they are tricking people into buying these free programs, it's not like they are soliciting contributions from other devs (they have an AI for that), and its not like there is some sort of score being kept (besides earning some sort of credibility on Github as a pro-AI developer through that star thing I guess).

So what would be the motivation to try to trick the community into embracing these sorts of projects? Open and enthusiastic disclosure and a community push to simply move on if you find that style of development distasteful would work better for everyone.

I have walked away from using a project that was developed with AI and I didn't feel the need to slam the developer for it, I just moved on. They didn't betray my trust because they don't owe me anything, and I didn't unfairly judge their work because I don't owe them anything. Everyone's a winner.

But that's just my humble opinion.