this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2026
120 points (98.4% liked)
Fuck AI
8623 readers
2016 users here now
"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"
A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.
AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.
Rules:
- Relevant posts only.
- No bigotry.
- This isn't a place to talk about the cons and (supposed) pros of AI for different use cases. This is /c/fuck_ai .
- Especially no AI advocacy.
- Don't make any posts that are just AI content with no context unless the point of your post is obvious from content. (Don't just post slop advertisements or slop political cartoons. At least make your point about it clear so we know you aren't just trolling.)
- Venting is part of the purpose of this community, but don't aim frustration or accusations at other users.
- These rules are a living document that may change in the future.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
To answer your other question, projects are not allowing any AI, even small (tiny?) usage of AI like your example. This is due to the societal cost of using AI being too high- as listed on https://noailist.org/why-no-ai
I would be shocked if all of the projects on your list genuinely adhere to requirements as stringent as "no contributor has ever googled an issue and accepted a working AI suggested solution". How would they even enforce that?
I see this so often.
That is not what is meant. No one is taking the "no true vegan would eat vegetables fertilized with animal byproducts" position here.
While I can't speak to this project's values specifically I can say for me, it is enough to know that every word of prose or line of code followed the same path
Your brain -> your hands -> that project
I think thats fairly reasonable. I have a personal project im working on- an sdl blend of DOS mode13h and the SNES retro engine. Ive used local models for specific issues- converting loaded images to closest palette matches, but for the most part its hand written. Im fairly happy with that middle ground. And im professionally frustrated by vibe coders that dont even check their output(not even code, they dont even check that the changed program works at all before submitting it).
I think the important thing is finding that happy space where you can feel certain that you are the author of the ideas that are being put to text (or code).
I'm not sure what that middle ground looks like but for me its having a really clear separation between the LLM acting as a really good search engine and static analyzer and a human authoring code.
In an ideal world, professionals would have been given LLM's and told "make of this what you will, we have no expectations of output". We did not get that world unfortunately.
I'm starting to suspect the way I asked my question wasn't clear and you (and BaroqueInMind) aren't answering the question I meant to ask. Were you thinking my question involved LLM-generated code? I intended for my hypothetical to involve only wholely-human-authored code written with knowledge originally gained from LLM output.
(If you could read my first edit on my response to BaroqueInMind in this thread, I hope that'll clear up what I was trying to ask.)
(Also, I hate calling anything gotten from an LLM "knowledge" because implies LLMs are reliable sources of accurate information. I could simply call it "information", but that makes it sound like I'm talking about copying output from the LLM into the contribution itself when I actually mean information ingested into the human's brain and considered in the process of authoring code themselves with their own human brain. Please excuse the lack of better ways to language it.)
If you are saying that in order to qualify for inclusion on noailist.org a project must forbid the use of knowledge gained from generative AIs, I of course want to know that as well, but yeah. I just want to make sure we're not talking past each other.
Your project was added because it matched the criteria for addition, that projects publicly state it won't be using any AI, in your case you mention "strictly forbidden".
To answer some of your other question, noailist.org has to rely on some trust with project owners that they are "to the best of their ability" enforcing their own AI policy. There is a lot of trust involved, from the project owner and from a project's contributors.
Some projects have been removed for not enforcing their AI policy, but they have been blatant and public about not following their own policy. Some projects the public have reviewed the submissions and found clues there were AI leveraged submissions, and the project was removed until it can follow its own public policy.
In your example, Sam might use LLM to find an answer, and then contribute some of their own hand written code. In this case this means Sam is still using AI and ignoring the societal cost of AI being too high ( https://noailist.org/why-no-ai/ ) by continuing to use AI at some point in the process.
If Sam admits to leveraging AI, you as the project owner may decide to bar Sam from further submissions unless they agree not to use AI anymore. That would be enforcing your AI policy to the best of your ability.
It would be dishonest if submissions were made with the use of AI without the project owner knowing about it especially having a public No-AI policy visible.
This may be a concern from project owners that contributors are submitting additions while leveraging AI but not being visible or honest about it. noailist.org would have to trust that project owners are attempting to find out if their contributors are leveraging AI or not... and being strict about enforcing their policy, and there are some tools and signs that help identify AI additions.
There might not be much leeway if noailist.org or the public is reviewing a project and the project owner had no idea that contributors were leveraging AI, the project would probably need to post a public statement to its contributors, and do more to enforce its strict No-AI policy. The project would probably be removed from noailist.org until there is more done to enforce the policy strictly.
Ok. That gives me more clarity. Thank you!