imho disclosing use of LLMs is just being transparent and honest. is it that hard? deliberately hiding this should absolutely get you in trouble, because trust is the most important thing to have in open-source
as you probably have seen in TFA, the policy does not ban LLM usage. its just asking for disclosure so that maintainers know how much effort was put in a PR
and, please, open-source maintainers owe us nothing. refusing to merge a patch is not the same as cops searching your car. this is merely maintainers trying to evaluate how they should spend their precious time
> disclosing use of LLMs is just being transparent and honest. is it that hard?
Your assertion here is irrelevant to the poster's point.
You're focused on the "happy path:" everyone has perfect information and judges correctly. If the submitter used AI, they say so and the commenters on the PR agree. If the submitter did not use AI, they don't say they used AI, and the commenters on the PR agree. This is the diagonal elements on the "used AI" confusion matrix.
The commenter is pointing out that information and judgment are not perfect and they're concerned about the off-diagonal elements of the confusion matrix. Especially the "Didn't use AI, but some commenters believe that they did" element.
I agree with you that trust and transparency are important, but please understand that disclosure is not a simple matter.
There is stigma surrounding LLM usage. There are consequences. Disclosing can lead to harassment and direct harm to one's reputation. I've been called "slop fetishist" and "clanker lover" before.
yes. there's a reason there's exactly two things in the policy that are marked as moderation consequences and they're directly next to each other. "no harassment" doesn't work if people are paranoid that any PR could be LLM slop, and "disclosure is required" doesn't work if people are worried about harassment. you need both, and you need them to go into force at the same time.
Completely agree. Making harassment of LLM users explicitly against the rules was very welcome. It's something I haven't seen in other LLM policies. It instantly gained my respect.
slightly off-topic but i dont really know how to put it in any other way: everything under this domain feels fake
i am looking very hard for any hint of humanity behind any of it, but all i see is a vibe-coded website, marketing a huge collection of vibe-coded apps by generating articles like this one. even their social media presence (linked on their blog[1]) feels like agents that have been told to role-play on X.com as caricatures of their position/role in the (made up?) company
and i mean.... come on, a $5 web browser??? that's just a wrapper around the system's webview??? why would anyone think this is something worth spending their time building, economically speaking??? even FREE browsers are struggling in this hyper-competitive market. if you make a paid browser it better be the best browser of all time, not some vibe-coded average of every other browser
i agree with the premise, im all for local-first software. but this really feels like the AI-era equivalent of the countless scams we've seen during the crypto-era...
And we don’t complain about that because nobody uses “sign in with google” for mission critical stuff. It’s absolutely a choice to tie all your things to a single corp.
im not even thinking about "sign in with google" here tbh im just thinking about how if google decides to block your access to gmail you won't be able to receive emails for things like verification codes, account recovery etc..
"being on tangled" really just means "publishing sh.tangled.* atproto records"
the beauty of atproto means that you are in no way tied to the VC funded company behind the web app available at tangled.org. you merely publish your git repository using a protocol that this app will pick up and present with a nice UI
any other app that speaks atproto and looks at those same sh.tangled.* records will be able to access everything in the same way
and even the git repository itself doesn't need to be hosted by tangled the company, you can host your repository yourself. all you need is a server that can speak git, ssh, http and websocket
> the beauty of atproto means that you are in no way tied to the VC funded company behind the web app
This is false: you’re tied to both tangled (unless you want to self host a forge, which if you did you wouldn’t have picked tabgled) and Bluesky for your login to keep working (unless you want to self host a complex constellation of social media components).
> you’re tied to both tangled (unless you want to self host a forge, which if you did you wouldn’t have picked tabgled)
this is true today only because nobody has made an alternative "frontend". but the data is there, public, for anybody to see. they can't take it from you even if they really wanted to. in fact, tangled has been working on making it easier for such third-party "frontends" to exist: https://blog.tangled.org/bobbin/
> and Bluesky for your login to keep working
you seem to be misinformed. "your login" is handled by your PDS, whichever it is. self-hosting a PDS doesn't require you to host anything beyond a sqlite database and a websocket connection. they are easy and very cheap to host, nothing like a "complex constellation of social media components"
today you can already 100% use atproto apps without having any ties whatsoever to bluesky:
- data: non-bluesky-hosted pds (either your own or some other host) for your data
- identity: the did:plc directory is managed by an independent swiss association, but you can even use did:web if you really want to
- relays/apps: blacksky is an example of a fully independent stack
Weird, I host exactly one thing (my PDS) and I am not at all tied to Bluesky for my login to keep working. Everything else is already publicly hosted by MANY others.
you can selfhost all components of tangled, takes about 200mb of memory and zero disk at the moment (api.tangled.org is completely stateless!): https://blog.tangled.org/bobbin/
> On the Valve side, Rubikon continues to evolve and Dirk has developed optimizations (similar to those in Box3D) in a new engine called Ragnarok. Look for that in future Valve games.
Considering the years, that X must mean we're skipping straight to ten! Gabe is a former MS employee, so of course counting problems are cropping up occasionally.
or, maybe, as a form of protest? many people are actively against AI for ethical/moral/personal reasons, so they want to avoid using software made with it
you can see it sort of like making a list of vegan restaurants. you might not see anything wrong with other restaurants (they might even have vegan dishes) but to some people it makes all the difference because they get to choose who they support
it's a bit of a shame that TFA does not mention that this is a non-standard API pushed by google only (all three editors of the draft are google engineers)
both Mozilla[1] and Apple[2] are opposed to it
encouraging people to build apps that only work in google web browsers actively harms the web and sends a signal to google that they can in fact keep doing this
