I don’t usually share what I build. Most of it lives on Codeberg or Github as a glorified off-site backup. 3-2-1 and all that. If I nuke my drive, I can pull it back down. That’s the whole point for me.
A while back I mentioned Pimaps here, a few people asked to see it, so I posted it. Got dunked on for AI slop despite explicitly marking which parts were AI-assisted (documentation and review- flagged with AIP). Similar story with Cliparr. I get it - Lemmy hates AI in any capacity.
What does the community actually expect from devs when sharing a project? I’m not assuming everyone here is a professional dev - though I’d guess the overlap is significant - so I’m wondering where the bar sits.
Polish? Full handwritten codebase? Something else?
How much of the sausage making do you actually want to see?
I don’t see how you were “dunked on”. There was one (1) person who went farther than voicing legitimate concerns… and then you were a twat and a half about it in the edited post. “Politely go fuck yourself” with a smile is worth a downvote.
Developers have been getting criticism for using particular tools for decades. For using Electron, for using systemd, for developing in Rust, for not developing in Rust, for using GTK or Qt… but when LLMs get involved, it’s suddenly verboten and you get to take some reductive moral high ground because “it’s just a tool”?
(edit) Just to answer the actual question:
of supposedly 25 years, you should be familiar with thatof no particular renown, you should learn how to handle it gracefully before a reputation develops around you.Ok, fair enough about “dunked on”. The exact nuance of Americanisms occasionally escapes me, in the same way “rooting for the home team” means something very different once you cross the equator. I’ll concede that, and stop trying to translate into lingo that isn’t mine.
On sequencing of events: I posted about my project as a genuine “hey, look at this cool thing I did”, with no intention to share the codebase until others asked for it. Literally no intention, grabbing for likes or stars on Github.
Someone responded by calling me “fluent in slop” - directed at a person who is, for what it’s worth, autistic. I wrote the original post and then rewrote the AI disclosure with some cheek baked back in. So, the twattery had a catalyst.
Which, I’ll note, is a word you’ve used twice in one comment while advising me not to be one :)
Finally: you’re conflating me with the author of Cliparr. I’ve never claimed 25 years of development (and if anything, I prefer not to talk about professional roles on social media). He’s the gent being called a slop merchant preemptively in the other thread, who inspired this one.
I think you’re trying to gaslight us and yourself into believing that this post has standing and that you didn’t fuck up.
Stop with the stilted arguments and actually listen to what people are telling you (after you asked for it) in a much nicer tone than I am using right now.
Fucked up…what, exactly? Calling out someone for harassing the cliparr dev or someone else for saying a person with ASD 1) sounds like a machine and 2) that their hobby project could kill someone if used?
Or the gent above telling me off for (in their words) being a twat by calling me a twat multiple times?
None of these are gaslighting…they’re literally a click away. Look.
I have no interest in making this about personalities. It’s about this -
There’s literally no disclosure the Cliparr dev (or others) could have made that that would have been accepted in good faith once tagged with [AIP]. I see that sort of attitude a lot on Lemmy. It’s irrational…because AI tools touch roughly 99.99% of code now.
From one autistic person to another, I’m going to make it extremely clear. The primary issue here is not that you used AI to write part of your project (although it is a legitimate source of concern for some). The issue, where you fucked up, is your response. You were unnecessarily rude, offensive, and confrontational in your initial reaction, and continued acting like that once people pointed it out after you asked.
Also, as a person with ASD myself: how dare you use your condition as an excuse for your behaviour. It’s fucking shameful, and that’s the most polite I’m willing to be about it.
You desperately want to make this personal? Fine.
How dare I? How dare you.
Where was I “rude?” Cite it or retract it.
Four times from you, unprompted:
[1] “you were a twat and the half”
[2] “don’t be a twat when you inevitably get pushback”
[3] “that’s just being a dick”
[4] “how dare you use your condition… It’s fucking shameful”
That’s your conduct. Here’s the catalyst - other commenters calling my project “slop machine” output and suggesting people could die from using it:
[1] “some slopper decided to remove all its data just after you leave cell coverage”
[2] “This just looks like Comaps ran through the slop machine”
[3] “Probably because OP is fluent in slop. Their job was done the moment the prompt was finished”
and on the Cliparr thread, someone likewise accusing that dev of similar, over having agents.md in their repo -
https://aussie.zone/post/37216287
I pushed back against those accusations first. Should I just smile politely?
You waded in later with name-calling.
You understand “twat” isn’t a throwaway word, right? And you think pushing back against “slop merchant” accusations constitutes “rudeness” warranting four separate insults?
Prove where I crossed the line. Otherwise stop calling me names and claiming moral high ground.
My mistake, I’ve edited the comment to reflect this. Although I don’t understand, then, why you even brought Cliparr up. You’re not involved, and only taking offence on someone else’s behalf.
That also means that the lovely message of “Ipso facto, for all the AI “Akshually” pedants, I’ve tagged this as AIP. Politely go fuck yourselves :)” was precipitated by a single negative interaction and a handful of downvotes. Regardless of linguistic and cultural differences, that’s just being a dick, and it should be pointed out. Perhaps you should reexamine how you handle criticism.
I brought up Cliparr because someone was being pre-emptively called a slop merchant before anyone had looked at their code. You don’t have to be personally involved to think that’s worth pushing back on.
On the catalyst: you’ve characterised it as “a single negative interaction and a handful of downvotes.” You’ve also already acknowledged you missed the deleted posts. Those two things are doing quite a bit of work together. The comment that preceded the edit wasn’t a downvote - it was being told I was “fluent in slop”, and that my app might kill someone, directed at someone who is autistic. That’s the interaction we’re talking about.
I’ll take the broader point that the phrasing was undiplomatic. But “perhaps you should reexamine how you handle criticism” is a bit rich from someone who’s called me a twat twice and is now on their third comment about it.