I stumbled upon a post that tells about a project not by the author, and the project has signs of AI. The post is clearly saying the project is good, so I interpreted it as a promotion, but maybe I am wrong. Should that kind of post still be marked as [AIP] ?

The post is https://lemmy.world/post/52316345

  • rako@tarte.nuage-libre.frOPFrançais
    1·
    17 hours ago

    Just like the discussion last time on this - every user will not be able to be a forensically review.

    I didn’t see it ! Sorry about that.

    Just like the discussion last time on this - every user will not be able to be a forensically review.

    AGENTS.md in a repository are used to guide development. The very file talks about using typescript; you don’t need typescript to use the app do you ?

    So if you’d like to propose this

    I was just asking for a precision, but that’s because I didn’t check archives enough

    And I don’t see any option for how this could be realistically implemented.

    I see at least one: if the project doesn’t have a clear no-ai policy, then assume it is AIP. But that’s not my proposition at the moment.

    • curbstickle@anarchist.nexusMEnglish
      2·
      17 hours ago

      AGENTS.md in a repository are used to guide development.

      That is not entirely true.

      It can be. Yes, it provides agents with contexts - rule centralization, commands, conventions - which may be useful for external tooling for a project that runs on code live like this. It isn’t exclusively used for project development, which makes its presence not an indicator.

      I see at least one: if the project doesn’t have a clear no-ai policy, then assume it is AIP. But that’s not my proposition at the moment.

      Also discussed in the meta thread about this, and what results is projects being called an AI project that are not projects developed with - or even designed to allow interaction with - AI.

      Also a non-starter.

      Edited to add: What needs to be avoided is nonsense like the recent debacle caused by people being unfamiliar with Akedemy, causing a series of nonsensical posts about KDE being “all in on AI”.

      Misinformation is one of those things I will not compromise on.

      I was just asking for a precision, but that’s because I didn’t check archives enough

      There is precision in the detailed rules post.

      If you want to see the prior meta discussions, you can look at my post history. I don’t often make standalone posts, so they are quick to find.