Based on recent comments this feels like a discussion we should have. So…topic, basically.
I’m 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?
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])
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”
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.
Might want to stop using the slop machines and look up these words: metaphor, analogy, example
Sure. And while I’m doing that, you might like to google Poe’s Law.
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. ❤