Hubert FiguièreApparently it's rude to reject AI slop.
You know what's rude? To expect people to read / review your AI slop.
Christopher Neitzert@hub No, it's rude to denigrate another's efforts, even if it was to prompt something, it is effort.
What also is rude is to have an oversized emotional reaction to a tool.
Good luck with that emotional regulation thing, son.
Claudius@xenophile @hub So… If someone comes and smears feces all over your apartment, you gotta commend them for the effort?
Nope.
@claudius Define feces. Specifically: what measurable property makes an output worthless? Scraped training data, license violation, no provenance, no human input? Name the test. Then run mine against it: C2PA provenance, neural watermark, local inference, zero-violation FOSS audit, published SBOM. Either it fails a criterion you can name, or the analogy was never an argument. Your move. github.com/rAIdio-bot/sbom
Sheogorath@xenophile @claudius Want an example? How about 473 that are relevant to this thread? https://github.com/flathub/flathub/issues?q=state%3Aclosed%20label%3A%22AI%20Slop%22
@sheogorath @claudius Those 473 are Flathub closures labeled by reviewer eyeball: single big commit, verbose messages, em-dashes in comments. That's the heuristic. None were adjudicated against provenance, watermark, or SBOM, the criteria I named. Flathub's own forum has humans flagged as 'AI Slop' and locked out by false positive. So your 473 is a volume count of label-matching, which is the exact tell. I asked for a measurable property that makes an output worthless. Count isn't a criterion.
@xenophile @claudius Well, in case of FlatHub under the current pressure with tons of AI slop coming in: The use of an LLM to generate code, PRs, answers and alike. Agreed, that's an almost binary query, since there is a possible exception for well maintained projects, but so far, the simple use of LLMs, basically makes work worthless in the context of FlatHub submissions. Blame people abusing LLMs, not the people at FlatHub, they are just volenteers, trying to build a nice software distribtion.
"The use of an LLM" is an origin test. Not one measurable property of the output, just how it was made. You reached the verdict without looking, which isn't a standard, it's a prior you never audited. Refusing to check the artifact takes less effort than the prompt you're holding in contempt. You proved my opening line. Judging the maker instead of the made is the same lazy move in every domain it shows up in. Nothing further.