r/ProgrammingLanguages • u/yorickpeterse Inko • 2d ago
To further combat AI/LLM slop, code dumps are now disallowed
About 6 months ago I shared an update on our attempt at handling the endless tide of AI slop. Most notably this post introduced a new approval flow for links to GitHub projects.
While this process has mostly helped reduce the amount of slop visible to readers (by virtue of GitHub links being filtered out by default until they are approved), it still requires manual work from moderators. In some instances there are also enough signals to strongly suggest the project is slop, but not so many that it's obvious, requiring more time from moderators to reach a decision.
Starting today we'll be trying something new and different, inspired by /r/rust and the new rules on lobste.rs:
Sharing links (in text or link submissions) to repositories on GitHub, GitLab and other code forges is no longer allowed and such posts are removed automatically and won't be approved, even after contacting moderators. Sharing links in comments is still fine. There are a few reasons for this:
- 99% of AI slop submissions are GitHub links
- When the post is a text post it pretty much always includes a GitHub link somewhere, sometimes even "cleverly" hidden in a code block
- Even if the link is legitimate, just dumping a link rarely invites for a discussion or the transfer of knowledge, instead it's just "Hey look at this, please like and subscribe!" so to speak
- It's unfortunately the only approach we can fully automate without wearing down our sanity. You can thank Reddit for enshittifying their API over the years for this.
Note that it's still perfectly fine to share a link to say a blog post about the project and then link to it from there. It's also still fine to share a text post and then include additional links in a comment. In fact, we suggest that those without a dedicated blog of sorts do exactly that.
In all cases, the no AI/LLM rule still applies and sharing AI/LLM projects will still get you banned.
Of course AI slop bros can generate a website and share a link to that, but it requires slightly more effort, and fortunately for us AI bros are as lazy as they are boring. Ultimately the goal is not to reduce slop making it past our filters to zero, but rather to get rid of say 99% of it without wearing down both moderators and subscribers.
I suspect some will disagree heavily with this change, but this change is ultimately another experiment in a line (and probably a growing one) of experiments to try and maintain a certain quality standard. If it turns out this doesn't work as well as hoped, we'll of course reevaluate it and try something else.
Finally, there are some existing projects that are genuine but adopted a more permissive stance towards the use of AI. Usually this is phrased something along the lines of "If you do X, Y, Z then AI is allowed". While I personally believe this is incredibly naive (developers can't be bothered writing documentation, yet you think they will review 10 000 lines written by Claude? Please), I don't yet know how to best deal with these cases. As such we'll tolerate this as long as it's within reason, i.e. "moderator discretion" applies here.
FAQ
What?
- Link submissions to repositories or text submissions containing repository links will be removed
- Links to articles or websites about the project is fine
- Unless it's an AI built article/website
- Including a link to your repository in a comment is fine
I don't have a website/blog/etc, now what?
Create a text post, then share a link in a comment. Don't use this as just a way of advertising though, we want discussions and sharing of knowledge, not a bunch of people screaming into a room "HEY LOOK AT MY PROJECT".
What about projects hosted on a non-standard forge?
These will make it past the filter, at least until we adjust it to also filter for these forges.
What about AI generated websites?
This falls under the "No LLM/AI" rule and sharing links to such sites will get you banned faster than Sam Altman can say "AI". We'll generally err on the side of "if it looks enough like an AI website, it's probably an AI website".
Will you update the rules/sidebar accordingly?
Once we're satisfied with the new system, yes.
But this is literally an AI pogrom!!11
Go away.
This is bad for the subreddit!
If this drives away a few AI slop enjoyers, then great! The other 130 000 subscribers will be happier for it.
Can I still share my project in the monthly "What are you working on" sticky?
Yes, provided it meets the rules (i.e. doesn't make use of LLM/AI output).
25
u/yorickpeterse Inko 2d ago
user reports:
1: This is manipulated content
Oh no. Anyway...
3
u/vanderZwan 1d ago
It's almost a technically correct pun. As in: correct, you typed it with your own hands instead of using a chatbot to do it
32
u/matthieum 2d ago
It's unfortunately the only approach we can fully automate without wearing down our sanity.
Take care of yourselves! (AI certainly won't...)
43
u/ApothecaLabs 2d ago
Good. I have been staying away because of all the AI slop. I'd rather spend my time working my compiler, than fighting off bots.
11
u/AustinVelonaut Admiran 2d ago
Looks like lobste.rs also took the same action, today:
https://lobste.rs/s/h0eate/updates_site_guidelines_ai_llm_tags
9
u/lonelyroom-eklaghor 2d ago
What is happening here, I am tired of seeing only mod posts from here
This is a subreddit about programming languages, and we cannot even post code dumps... no idea what this statement even means
4
u/Embarrassed-Crow9283 1d ago
Sometimes I feel like part of why LLM coding was so popular was that the developers were doing it to themselves in a way by hating metaprogramming ( algorithmic code generation, macros, etc.).
People hated metaprogramming because it was very hard to predict when you have code that write more code that is executed. You need to think in multiple layers of program to get the answer. People don't like generated programs in general.
But metaprogramming was exactly how you could automate pretty much any code pattern you want.
And then comes LLMs.
Unlike metaprogramming which was your code generating more code deterministically, LLMs are not even deterministic, which means LLM-generated code is even harder to predict.
It is not reproducible.
It is a black box you don't know the inside of.
You cannot have a trace of the metaprogram that generated the code and can't debug the metaprogram.
It is expensive and takes a long time to change something, oftentimes much longer than the much-complained compile time.
You could mostly just ask.
This means you get generated code anyway, but even much less predictable.
I mean... it probably is much faster to have a statically typed language that gives you the convenience of a dynamically typed language by turning every function declaration into a late-bound, monomorphized generic with instantiation-time type checking and give you a convenient language with good runtime performance but LLMs that can take hours just to fix simple things are preferred.
Sometimes I don't understand why is there such an irony anymore.
4
u/suhcoR 2d ago edited 2d ago
What about links to articles in the project itself? I usually don't write separate articles for/about my projects; all interesting information is in the Readme or some documents in a docs subfolder, or a wiki or discussion page which belongs to the github project. For me that's much more efficient, because the infrastructure to do so is already there and I can keep everything related at the same place.
EDIT: also note that most of my submissions over the last seven years was to let people know that there is a new programming language with an implementation, or that/how e.g. Mono or LuaJIT can be used as a backend, demonstrated by code. I'm aware that all this is no longer considered an art since everybody and their dogs can order it from an LLM, but these are still the things I'm interested in and provide to the community, assuming that also other people could be interested. Discussions are usually by-products.
7
u/LazyUntilYouNeedMe 2d ago
That's exactly the kind of thing I would miss much from this community. Code is beautiful too, not just prose, and most great ideas are expressible in rather short pieces of it. Ones that don't need a website nor a blog.
But it seems to be that AI must be the demise for all beauty.
3
u/suhcoR 2d ago
It's even worse; my text posts more often get rejected as "AI generated" by the more and more overzealous "AI detectors" (what appears to be a promising new branch of quackery).
6
u/LazyUntilYouNeedMe 2d ago
The world has become so much worse by the advent of these technologies and now it seems as if everything else had to bend around them. I hate it so much.
Those that use AI should be honest an righteous, not we be forced to change, and every day the internet is turning worse and worse, an epidemic of having to prove that one is human has ensued. Why always those that abide by the rules have to suffer from their results?
3
u/suhcoR 2d ago
Actually I have nothing against those technologies per se. Even though I'm not particularly known as an early adopter (I still don't own a smartphone, but not because I hate technology, but simply it is of no practical use for me), I consider LLMs useful in many domains. The problem is rather the speed at which this development has taken hold and caught everyone by surprise. The pace of development is much faster than society and industry can adapt. No wonder people feel caught off guard and pressured. While I can understand the fundamentally negative attitude towards AI, it ultimately cannot stop the change.
I view the present topic from that perspective as well. If the work is original and interesting, I consider it rather secondary whether AI was involved or not. My time is primarily wasted on posts that have nothing to do with the topics that interest me, or where I could just as easily obtain the same information myself in a short amount of time using an LLM.
2
u/yorickpeterse Inko 2d ago
Unfortunately there's just no way we can make a meaningful/practical distinction between these cases. In particular, if we say something like "it's OK to link to a documentation folder" then it will get abused heavily or require a lot of manual intervention. In theory you could set up complex AutoModerator rules to only remove e.g. GitHub links that link to the top-level of a project, but such rules are fiddly to set up and they will absolutely get abused.
What I would recommend in such cases is to either host the articles proper somewhere (e.g. a documentation website), or provide some sort of summary in a text post.
2
u/suhcoR 2d ago
"it's OK to link to a documentation folder"
My concern was "articles in the project itself", so I would point to a specific markdown file (a readme, a discussion or wiki article), not just a folder.
to either host the articles proper somewhere
As said, this is unpractical for several reasons; my "documentation website" is the repository, or the wiki or discussion associated with the repository, as likely most developers who focus on the code and not on marketing. I can check whether I could automatically publish parts of the repository via github pages, but that's mostly additional bueraucracy, not added value.
2
u/yorickpeterse Inko 2d ago
Probably the easiest way in that case would be to set up a website using e.g. GitHub Pages. It's still a bit annoying of course, but alas I don't see a way of selectively allowing certain content from e.g. GitHub while still being able to meaningfully filter out code dumps and AI slop.
1
u/kaplotnikov 2d ago
My guess that there will be the next step like "claude, create github pages for me so could post it to reddit". I do not see how it would solve problem in the long term. IMHO premoderation and reputation barriers would be only way to post anyway and creating a parallel weakly moderated reddit like ProgramingLanguageDiscussions or ProgramingLanguageDrafts, with promoting posts to this reddit after review and if there is lively disucssion. Denying LLMs in modern context looks strange, but filterning is needed. Maybe outright forbid direct postting here and only selecting good posts from ProgramingLanguageDiscussions by moderators.
3
u/yorickpeterse Inko 2d ago
So basically your solution to the problem of "moderators can't keep up" is "more work for moderators". Right, that will surely work...
1
u/kaplotnikov 2d ago
No need to read all that is posted. The moderation does not have to be precise and never give false negatives. See likes, subject, and so and skip the rest w/o looking. If something is just unlucky it will surface with likes anyway. In parallel dump subreddit case the moderation is by picking not by denying.
1
u/suhcoR 2d ago
I think your proposed "Create a text post, then share a link in a comment" is a good first approach, but I would recommend the following compromise: posting just a link, as Reddit originally was designed for, might be questionable for programming language projects, because then the reader (or admin) has to do the research to find out whether it is interesting or relevant; only accepting links to articles might help partially, but if it's a lot of text, checking for the said features is still too much work. So why not skip all link posts and instead require people to write a brief text post with a link explaining what the link is about and why it is interesting and relevant for the programming language community? The initial effort will likely keep away many (most?) low-effort contributions, and misuse will be detected soon by the community and reported to the admin. So you have also a community filter. If the community doesn't botter a post, why should the admin care? Just my "five cents" ;-)
3
u/Blueglyph 1d ago
Yay for fighting the big LLM issue, but forbidding people to link their project no matter seems unnecessary or even detrimental in all aspects.
At least, when someone posts a link to AI slop, it's possible to see it for what it is. If there's no link, how will we able to assess that wonderful project everyone describes?
7
u/jcastroarnaud 2d ago
Thank you, mod! The AI slop was getting too thick these days; the new rules will improve the signal-to-noise ratio in this sub.
BTW, some folks in this thread are complaining about banning content, probably not noticing that a link to the project can be posted in a comment. Lazy vibe coders, indeed.
6
u/yorickpeterse Inko 2d ago
BTW, some folks in this thread are complaining about banning content, probably not noticing that a link to the project can be posted in a comment. Lazy vibe coders, indeed.
This unfortunately is the reality of Reddit: tell people X is not allowed in the most clear terms possible and they'll still litigate it until the end of times. AI bros in particular also love to play the victim as if there's some sort of Illuminati-style conspiracy against them, when in reality people are just sick of their uncreative word/code vomit.
This is also why when we ban people for AI slop, we also (or at least I do) mute them right away as otherwise you'll wake up the next day to a bunch of "OMG LITERALLY HITLER" messages in your moderator inbox.
4
u/MichalMarsalek 2d ago
Thank you for clarifying the part about existing languages. I was kinda confused, because I regularly see posts regarding languages that do use some form of LLM to develop the language, seemingly breaking rule number 4.
Often these are regulars of the subreddit and everyone knows the language is not AI slop, even if it uses AI.
But I think many people that put genuine work towards their language do not think their language is AI slop even if it uses LLM for say code review or generating testcases.
12
u/yorickpeterse Inko 2d ago
I wouldn't necessarily consider these projects slop because there's of course a difference between "Claude, make a language that combines X and Y" versus spending years working on something by hand and then using e.g. Claude for some specific bits (e.g. translating an algorithm to your language).
The problem is that much like a drug addiction, it seems developers really get high on AI use and are seemingly incapable of any form of self-moderation. There are also a lot of AI users that are so utterly boring in terms of what they produce that you're basically left with two choices: a blanket ban, or be consumed by it.
How we'll handle these special cases in the long term will really depend on how those projects manage their AI usage, and how much the AI slop bros will ruin it for everybody else.
-1
u/kaplotnikov 2d ago
The polishing texts with LLMs looks like a valid case for me. LLMs are better at English than me (non-native English speaker) and are used correct the grammar and the structure. Mass style corrections like switching to passive voice for tech docs are also better done by them. The post processing and comparison are still needed after them to ensure that there are no extras. Outright forbidding any use of LLMs looks like overkill.
5
u/snugar_i 1d ago
The downside is that you get a text that looks completely AI-generated and in the unified AI writing style that some people, including me, are getting more and more allergic to. There's nothing wrong with having a few mistakes/typos in a text - many readers won't be native speakers either, and they might not even notice.
10
u/AnArmoredPony 2d ago
so it's more like "code dumps are still allowed as long as the link is in the comments"
31
u/Dykam 2d ago
Sure, if you ignore the exact nuance behind why they made this change.
-14
u/AnArmoredPony 2d ago
which is?
26
u/Dykam 2d ago
They didn't do it to stop code dumps.
They did it to reduce AI slob dumps.
They did it to add some friction, with the idea that specifically AI bros are too lazy to read the rules properly and take that route.
Which is not unreasonable, a lot of those posts just mass-posts on subreddits without reading the rules, those all get filtered out this way.
-15
u/AnArmoredPony 2d ago
this friction will be equally applied to every poster lol. people are lazy to read the rules in general, AI or not. I'd get if there was repo age lower bound or something like that, but ts...
15
u/Dykam 2d ago
If people are too lazy to read the rules, good riddance? It's not difficult, and considering the subject, a threshold for post quality is something you'd want.
What is this braindead mindset that more content is better? Of course not, part of a sub is curation. If I wanted to see slob, I'll just start browsing all Github repos.
Or that friction applies equally. Of course it doesn't. It only applies to those who don't actually give a shit.
3
2
11
u/yorickpeterse Inko 2d ago
Technically yes, but that's mostly an escape hatch for those that simply don't have a personal website but still want to share their honest project. Depending on how this will be abused we may also stop allowing that at some point.
6
u/luluhouse7 2d ago
Adding friction like this also seems to have worked okay for r/ExperiencedDevs. Slop writers tend to either be too lazy about the disclosure rule or because it’s not actually banned, are willing to disclose. Obviously not a silver bullet, but seems to have overall improved the quality. And if it’s low quality, then the post gets downvoted to hell anyways.
I also personally have a bigger problem with human slop than high quality AI content (which honestly typically requires human intervention anyway) or AI-assisted content (especially in the context of foreign language speakers). Not an opinion everyone shares, I know.
-2
2
u/initial-algebra 2d ago
More like, if you don't have anything to say besides "look at this code", we don't care.
2
u/Key-Bother6969 1d ago
My opinion is that the rule would be more sustainable in long-run if it recognizes all 3rd-party software promotions as spam, rather than just GitHub links, but of course GitHub links including.
The majority today are using LLMs to generated software, and they see platforms such as this one as a purely promotional channel, free of charge. This trend perhaps will only intensify over time. In particular, I think links to articles that you are still allowing over time will be used as an escape hatch more intensively if there are no other ways around.
All of this is naturally just a promotional spam escape hatches, that surprisingly many subreddits are still allowing to a certain degree by reasons that I think are no longer relevant. One possible reason is that they don't want to harm fair authors. But the thing is today those who write software by hand are probably not seeking for visibility. They don't need to announce their projects to large audience regardless of the platform's rules. This is naturally counterproductive for them by many reasons.
4
u/LazyUntilYouNeedMe 2d ago
I dislike this, because how is one supposed to share their project with the community if they can't even share a link to it. I enjoy reading blogs too, but not everyone wants to set one up and not every language should need its own website.
Once more this is the tactic of punishing many for the wrongdoing of few.
3
u/Dykam 2d ago
It does not say you cannot share a link.
Also, the alternative is that the mod team gives up. You're essentially saying "work harder dear mods, I don't care about you".
-4
u/LazyUntilYouNeedMe 2d ago
It literally says in the text that links in posts are forbidden.
No, I do not intend for there to be any stricter moderation than that of the naturally emerging societal contract.
Also my practice has not changed, why should mere presence of AI make it immoral.
2
u/Dykam 2d ago
It also literally says in the text links in comments are fine.
It's not immoral, merely impractical. The presence of AI made moderation as it is impossible, as such a slight inconvenience for you in exchange for making moderation a possible task.
And if you post here just to receive clicks, I don't think it's the right mindset anyway. Post because you love the discussion, putting the subject in the post itself. But that's just me.
And for the record, it does not literally say links in posts are forbidden. It refers specifically to links to code hosting sites.
6
u/yorickpeterse Inko 2d ago
The post outlines exactly how to approach this, you should probably read it in full before heading to the comments section.
-1
u/LazyUntilYouNeedMe 2d ago
I see absolutely nothing in the post indicating any other way, that all of these measures are taken only to bring absolutely nothing to those not using AI.
Why always make it harder for people to share their projects, why not make it easier?
AI is already forbidden, and it is enforced already by the always-looming sidebar rule and the active confirmation on the post itself.
The bad demeanour of wicked people should not impact those who abide by it.
This "solution" of putting the link into a comment strikes me as nothing else than such an attempt, why by the circumstances of this time alone, should people be forbidden form simply posting a link. If there was no AI, that very same act would not have been forbidden; how then may I ask is it rightful to be forbidden now, sine nothing about the act itself has changed.
Then why outlaw it? Must the righteous once more bend simply because of the mere existence of the wicked tools and what creations they have given rise to?
10
u/yorickpeterse Inko 2d ago
I see absolutely nothing in the post indicating any other way, that all of these measures are taken only to bring absolutely nothing to those not using AI.
There's a nice little FAQ section in the post that highlights what is happening, and in particular what projects can do that don't have a dedicated website:
I don't have a website/blog/etc, now what?
Create a text post, then share a link in a comment. Don't use this as just a way of advertising though, we want discussions and sharing of knowledge, not a bunch of people screaming into a room "HEY LOOK AT MY PROJECT".
If this isn't clear enough then I can't help you.
Why always make it harder for people to share their projects, why not make it easier?
Because Reddit doesn't offer a meaningful way of doing so, especially when you're moderating a community with 130 000 subscribers and 100-150 posts per months (including those removed). Wishful thinking stops working once you have more than a few users.
AI is already forbidden, and it is enforced already by the always-looming sidebar rule and the active confirmation on the post itself.
Which requires manual work and is taking its toll on the moderators, hence the change.
The bad demeanour of wicked people should not impact those who abide by it.
Then go yell at the wicked people and not those trying to maintain some degree of order and quality.
If there was no AI, that very same act would not have been forbidden; how then may I ask is it rightful to be forbidden now, sine nothing about the act itself has changed.
Because there is AI and it's out of hand. Have you been living under a rock for the last few years?
I'm actually surprised you ask this because you answer your own question in the same sentence, albeit indirectly.
Must the righteous once more bend simply because of the mere existence of the wicked tools and what creations they have given rise to?
Yes, such is the world until developers at large grow a spine and learn to stand up for themselves and their work, instead of going "Yes daddy Altman, hit me some more with that Codex". Until that happens, communities such as this one have no choice but to take a strong stance in order to maintain whatever quality it wishes to maintain.
Long story short, you sound angry but you should direct that anger at those causing the problems (i.e. the AI bros), not the moderators trying to contain it.
0
u/FrostyMatters 2d ago
The point is the mods don't want you to share your project here. There have been enough people who regretted posting their project on this forum that you should just take their advice and don't bother, there are far more welcoming communities.
2
1
u/vanderZwan 1d ago edited 1d ago
Can I make a request to improve rule visibility?
I know it won't stop the pro-AI bros, but maybe you recall me messaging you a few weeks ago with a "what are this sub's exact rules on AI again?" question (related to someone else's LLM-generated programming language project). I got the sense that whichever mod replied was quite tense and on edge, and I felt kind of bad afterwards about that, because I genuinely had failed to find what the exact rule was despite trying and wanted to make sure I wasn't breaking any rules, and didn't mean to piss anyone off.
And yes, I understand how you might think "it's in the last sentence of the text in the side-bar!", but most other subs have a header-sized link that says "Rules" in the sidebar and/or follow such a header with a list of bullet points. This sub has neither.
Similarly, there's only two pinned messages (I'm assuming due to Reddit limitations), of which only this one refers to the AI rule, but only in passing and only halfway through, and otherwise is written as if everyone reading this message is a regular already who knows all the rules.
So in my case, I was scanning the page, looking, for a link, pinned post or bolded sidebar header saying "Rules" and couldn't find any, and didn't read the description because I figured it was just a description of what the sub was about.
My main suggestions would be:
Update the side-bar to have a section about the sub's rules, whether that be a link, a bullet-point list, or both. The main point is visibility/discoverability (especially if you browse on old.reddit like me)
update the text of this pinned post to open with a bolded:
REMINDER: In all cases, the no AI/LLM rule still applies and sharing AI/LLM projects will still get you banned.
Like I said earlier, I also doubt it will stop any AI-bros, but even if improving rule discoverability saves you just a handful of mod interactions a month, it's still fewer of these exhausting mod interactions, no?
1
u/yorickpeterse Inko 1d ago
We can adjust things over time but it makes absolutely no difference: we've done this before over the years and the people breaking the rules consistently ignore them no matter how many times they are reminded of them.
1
u/vanderZwan 1d ago
I'm not asking for rule adjustments, I'm asking for better rule visibility.
And while I sympathize with the shitty experiences you must have gone through in the last years as mods here, unless you have a method for counting an absence of people breaking the rules and have used that to show that better rule visibility does not help, I do not see how that experience proves anything against the sensibility of that request.
1
u/stevetursi 1d ago
Most of the people you call pro-ai bros feel like they don't have a choice. It's like holding back the tide. Yeah some people are all in I get that but most of us are just trying to stay employed. Maybe a less pejorative term would be appropriate.
1
1
u/jeffstyr 1d ago
So to be clear, this also means you can't make a post (for example) asking a question about some technology that happens to be hosted on GitHub (not a language impl, and not your own project), or mentioning such. You also can't reference a particular page/file of someone else's, that happens to be in GitHub, as part of your post.
I'm not sure if the new rules intend to prevent that, but they seem to, and that's a problem. If you separate out links and put them in a comment then you'll get fewer answers (in the case of a question) because because the reader has to do extra work, and people generally find it pretty annoying when you ask a question but don't make it as easy as possible for people to help (for instance, by providing links to what you are talking about).
My overall point is: If someone wants to make a post that isn't "look at this new language impl" then they can easily get blocked by this rule, and there's not an easy fix (because, it's not expected that you have your own web page about someone else's thing). Stripping out all the links and putting them in a comment is strange and a bad experience for the reader.
1
u/yorickpeterse Inko 1d ago
I'm not sure if the new rules intend to prevent that, but they seem to, and that's a problem. If you separate out links and put them in a comment then you'll get fewer answers (in the case of a question) because because the reader has to do extra work, and people generally find it pretty annoying when you ask a question but don't make it as easy as possible for people to help (for instance, by providing links to what you are talking about).
Indeed this is not possible in the current system. Unfortunately there is simply no way we can somehow magically filter out code dumps from posts that merely mention a link as part of it (but the link isn't the main focus).
What we may do over time is adjust the filters so that only links in the form of e.g.
github.com/namespace/projectare removed but not e.g.github.com/namespace/project/blob/.... I however suspect this will get abused so it's not what we're starting with for now.
1
u/reflexive-polytope 1d ago
Do gists count as "GitHub repositories" for the purpose of enforcing this rule?
2
u/yorickpeterse Inko 1d ago edited 1d ago
We currently match on
github.comsogist.github.comalso matches. This is because what we've seen people do in the past is that they don't include full URLs but instead just usegithub.com/...(so without thehttps://bit). I'll see if I can adjust the filter to at least allowgist.github.comfor the time being.EDIT:
gist.github.comshould be allowed now. Let's hope this won't get abused.1
u/reflexive-polytope 1d ago
It was just a question. I didn't mean to make you change the rules. But thanks!
2
u/yorickpeterse Inko 1d ago
No worries! I did also experiment a bit with trying to cook up some regex that rejects links in the form of
github.com/namespace/projectbut allows those in the form ofgithub.com/namespace/project/blob/...so you could still link to files.Unfortunately, I couldn't get this to work and the closest alternative is to allow any other links the moment there's a "blob" link, which isn't quite what we want either.
1
u/zweiler1 🔥 Flint 1d ago edited 1d ago
I like this change overall. Even though I posted about my language in thus sub as well (as I didn't know where else to share it lol) I think most of us in this sub are all people who more or less are writing their own languages and it isn't as if people of this sub would actually try and use the languages of other people (I think).
By the removal of code dumps I think the focus will inherently ly more on sharing ideas or concepts. I dont know if everyone in this sub makes their own language but I feel like a lot of people do, so sharing ideas and concepts is inherently more interesting to that group than seeing a "new fancy language" from someone else (me included lol).
And if you really want feedback you can just post the GH link in the comments so I dont thunk I have any problems with the new rules tbh.
Edit: Spelling
1
u/chic_luke 18h ago
Can the blog be hosted on GitHub Pages, or does it need another domain and hosting to qualify?
1
1
u/gplgang 5h ago
"What about AI generated websites?
This falls under the "No LLM/AI" rule"
Thank you. I am honestly curious to hear about some of the things people do with LLMs because regardless of methods, the technical aspects are interesting in their own right. Unfortunately, for some reason people resort to generating AI websites with uncanny valley design aesthetics and annoying language that reads like every other prompt (I use LLMs all the time for research, even if I'm still stubborn when I let them write code) and taking too long to get to the point. I have no idea why, I feel like most everyone that creates an interesting piece of software does a fine job at communicating about it, and even if not, its not necessary to get it right, the direct contact of your own voice and ideas to someone else is what matters imo). If I spent even more than a few hours on something I don't feel like writing about it should be punted off to an LLM, its a moment to connect and share something you put effort into
I know a lot of LLM stuff has no effort and that is why, but I notice it even in projects where people are clearly working hard and doing something technically interesting. Its sad
0
u/FrostyMatters 2d ago
Honestly you lost all credibility after allowing the v1.0 Mojo thread when it's is an AI produced language, and then shutting down the thread when you were called out. It's now the case that Ruby, Swift, C#, Elixir, Javascript, Julia, Python and others are using AI in their processes. You go to an academic conference on programming languages and 90% of the people are using AI in their work.
So hobbyists. industry, and academics are using AI in language design and development, but this sub on reddit it's vorboten. The more this sub's mods becomes hostile to AI, fewer and fewer people are going to visit, post their ideas. It's already to the point that we can't talk about various languages that are posted on HN and Lobsters here, which is sad because there's not too many places to talk about these things.
But it's also fine because I'm meeting new people and talking with them about their AI PL projects and people are just generally chill and excited to share things, as opposed to here where you are forced to make weird proclamations you don't use AI, and even if you do your project can still be banned by the mods if they get the wrong smell off it. (And no, my project hasn't been banned but I'm referring to the instance in the Mojo thread, that really rubbed me the wrong way seeing what the mods had done, I decided to never post a project here in the future.)
9
u/yorickpeterse Inko 2d ago
Honestly you lost all credibility after allowing the v1.0 Mojo thread when it's is an AI produced language, and then shutting down the thread when you were called out.
Mojo is/was in a bit of an odd place because on one end they're very much AI boosters, but on the other hand they did do a lot of interesting work that, at least to my knowledge, preceded the current AI hype to some degree at least.
Claiming "you lost all credibility" though strikes me as the typical emotional AI booster response that is so pervasive when AI content is not allowed. Get over it.
You go to an academic conference on programming languages and 90% of the people are using AI in their work. [...]
So your argument basically boils down to "All my friends are jumping off a bridge, therefor you should allow discussions on how to best jump off a bridge" or "All my friends do drugs so I should be allowed to do drugs here".
This isn't quite as convincing as an argument as you seem to think it is.
which is sad because there's not too many places to talk about these things.
If you're sad about not being able to talk about LLM produced content, you can go somewhere else. This subreddit is not the place and we're not going to cater the entire subreddit to your personal preferences.
0
u/FrostyMatters 1d ago
> Mojo is/was in a bit of an odd place because on one end they're very much AI boosters, but on the other hand they did do a lot of interesting work that,
Yeah, and that's why you lost credibility, because your stated rule is "Projects that rely on LLM generated output (code, documentation, etc.) are not welcomed and will get you banned." and yet there are exceptions where you deem appropriate based on your perceived interest. So you come off as capricious and inconsistent -- not credible.
> Get over it.
Don't worry you've made it very clear you think this is "your community" rather than a community you moderate.
You know, I'm not really part of the Lobste.rs community because it's private, but I was reading some of the posts over there and I was struck by how the mods respond there with modesty and sincerity, quite a contrast to how they respond here. You want to model their community, I suggest you model the mods' demeanor before their AI policy.
> This isn't quite as convincing as an argument as you seem to think it is.
Good because that's not actually what I argued. What I said was that this has become a place where actual programming languages and research cannot be shared due to these weird rules. Look at the Goose programming language which was launched recently on HN and it was discussed on Lobsters as well. Can't find a mention of it on the programming language reddit though, because you would ban anyone who posts it permanently.
> If you're sad about not being able to talk about LLM produced content, you can go somewhere else.
Do you see me contributing here? You don't have to tell me not to. Interesting PL discussion is largely happening now in the context of AI, you guys don't even know what's going on out there anymore. So in the spirit of encouraging you to do something you're already doing, I welcome you to stay in your bubble and ban everything that displeases you.
> This subreddit is not the place and we're not going to cater the entire subreddit to your personal preferences.
Right yes, this subreddit is for *your* personal preferences. I love how 50% of the top 10 posts from the last year are from the mods, about mod activity, and the mods work.
-12
u/Puzzleheaded-Lab-635 Glyph 2d ago
This isn’t the way to deal with this problem.
9
u/yorickpeterse Inko 2d ago
If you have any meaningful suggestions (that we haven't already tried) then we're all ears, otherwise I can only interpret this as "I don't like it that the moderators run their community in a way that doesn't match my expectations".
13
u/Dykam 2d ago
And that isn't the way to help the mods solve the problem.
So what should they do?
-10
u/AnArmoredPony 2d ago
manual approval. that's it. yes, it is the only way to really gate keep AI projects. they could use an LLM to automate scanning of linked repos (because it is usually pretty good at detecting claudisms) but I doubt they'll go that route lol. maybe autoremove posts with links without a proper flare to help with that, but in the end, you have to read the code and docs yourself
20
u/theangryepicbanana Star 2d ago
We've been doing manual approval for ages and it's quite tiring
-5
u/AnArmoredPony 2d ago
maybe just go full r/rust? allow code dumps in a weekly thread and deny/ban everything else?
14
u/Dykam 2d ago
Did you not read the post? The whole point is that the mod team is being overloaded, and thus they need secondary measures to make sure that manual approval is still a feasible method.
-7
u/AnArmoredPony 2d ago
but this particular method is stupid! it doesn't weed out people who write code using AI, it weeds out people who don't read the rules. and if they don't that in the "rules" tab, then noone will ever find it before posting. why not add more friction at this point? like, your post must not contain em dashes? or prohibit using "I built" phrase in the title? that will sure catch some people
10
u/Dykam 2d ago
That is a double win.
Win one: It weeds out people who don't read the rules.
Win two: It weeds out lots of AI slop because those don't read the rules.
But yes, your suggestion to add unreasonable or obscure rules sure equals a reasonable suggestion to move links to the comments. Which I've seen in other subs too, long before AI even.
-9
-5
u/Trave11er3427 2d ago
in short order everyone will be writing with AI just like when the early K&R C compiler first showed up. BTW i think that banning AI slop is a good thing for this subreddit. however i’m also a fan of using AI responsibly. i think the real question here is not whether AI was used, but whether the poster didn’t cleanup their work before posting it. posting something half-baked is just torture on the moderators, so don’t do it. if a roofing contractor leaves nails and garbage in your yard after doing the job, they probably shouldn’t be paid until they clean it up. same here - don’t post your slop - if you’re using AI then take the additional time to also ask AI to cleanup your garbage before you share it with the world.
4
u/yorickpeterse Inko 2d ago
in short order everyone will be writing with AI just like when the early K&R C compiler first showed up.
About 10 years ago people said similar things about cryptocurrencies, and years before that about using MongoDB and how relational databases were dead, and years before that about other things. The list goes on and on the further you go back in time, and every time the outcome is the same: the supposed silver bullet/holy grail sees some use in specific areas, but it's not the solution to all problems that the boosters make it out to be.
There's also absolutely zero proof that in e.g. 10 years nobody will be using text editors any more and instead will rely purely on prompting. In fact, I would argue that will all the backslash against AI it's very much going in the opposite direction where it becomes a tool largely shunned and used either by those who need the extra training wheels, or by those who use it for highly specific tools it's actually good at. But it being essentially the next QWERTY? Yeah no, that's not going to happen.
0
u/Trave11er3427 2d ago
you misunderstood me - I’m not saying that no one will write code by hand without AI. certainly the assembly language community is thriving and alive and well today. in 10 yrs the hand-coding community will be similar - it will be here but at the current pace of improvements, AI will eventually make coding both easier (to generate) and harder (to layout the vision and design before generating anything) at the same time. i just think that many people using AI are not cleaning up afterwards before they post. most agree that we don’t want to see dirty, clothes on the floor, bed unmade, nastiness. the mods do a pretty good job of allowing the more interesting posts thru and keeping out the slop. but not all AI is slop. it’s slop because they didn’t take the extra time to clean up.
-8
2d ago
[deleted]
5
u/yorickpeterse Inko 2d ago
The rules are pretty darn clear:
Projects that rely on LLM generated output (code, documentation, etc) are not welcomed and will get you banned.
If I need to spoon feed you the definition of "AI use" then this subreddit isn't the place for you. Similarly, if at this point the definition of "AI slop" isn't clear, perhaps take a look around you and you should be able to figure it out for yourself.
I know of at least two new languages that were designed and completely specified by their authors and the implementation was produced by LLMs. Is this AI slop?
Yes. Again our rules are clear: AI usage is not allowed.
2
u/slaymaker1907 1d ago
I've read through the rules, but one thing I've wondered about are mechanical edits sort of like a really smart IDE. i.e., have the AI update some method signature to have a new parameter and have it propagate through the syntax tree, but leaving the interesting bits that actually use that new parameter to myself.
2
u/yorickpeterse Inko 1d ago
In theory that would be fine, but with the current flood of AI slop there's no way we can tell how far people have taken it. So until things settle down all we can realistically do is ban it altogether.
1
2d ago
[deleted]
4
u/yorickpeterse Inko 2d ago
There is no way to deterministically and unambiguously classify any text of piece of code as AI generated. That's another reason why it is not possible or easy to have any clear and predictable rules.
There are plenty of signals you can use for this however, from typical claudisms such as overuse of em-dashes, "it's not X, it's Y" and so on to more statistical signals such as tens of thousands of lines of code being changed in very short time periods. The problem is that codifying those rules into some sort of automated system results in something that is likely to be outdated quickly and difficult to maintain. I in fact spent the last few days looking into building such a system, but decided there are better and more pleasant ways of spending my time, especially when there are far more effective and easy to apply solutions.
The only way you can win the game of AI slop is by setting the bar high enough that lazy AI bros won't even bother, which based on our past experienced of dealing with them is actually pretty doable precisely using the rules we've applied in the past and are experimenting with now.
PS I don't care about your subreddit or if you ban me.
Then why are you here? Sounds to me like you care more about us following your expectations, which is not going to happen, so feel free to stay away.
36
u/poorlilwitchgirl 2d ago
What I don't understand is why somebody who prefers to avoid actually using programming languages would have any interest in producing one. I've seen them here, so I absolutely support these efforts to filter them out, but I simply can't comprehend what they mean to accomplish. I occasionally use LLMs in my work, but only as a high-level error checker and simulated brainstorming partner; to me, even allowing an LLM to produce boilerplate just means you're either a very slow typer or you aren't using very efficient abstractions, and in either case blind automation isn't the best solution.