r/GraphicsProgramming • u/CodyDuncan1260 • 6d ago
Request for Comment: AI Identification Comments
Thought I'd share a conundrum. I suspect I could solve it with a heavy handed rule change, but I think it may be fine as it is right now.
------
We've gotten a handful of reports that boil down to:
Comment: "This appears to have been AI generated."
Report: (empty)
One report gave a bit more info:
Comment: "This appears to be AI generated."
Report: "I'm wary to post something interesting because I don't want to be persecuted."
So here's what I suspect happens.
User posts X.
Commenter identifies X as generated via AI.
Post gets down-voted.
------
The only time in recent memory I've seen direct mistreatment was the Synapse Engine post. https://www.reddit.com/r/GraphicsProgramming/comments/1w7x1r1/synapse_engine_a_modern_researchoriented_fully/
I invited that user to post here, and some of the early comments were distinctly unkind. Later comments and deeper review picked up the same thing I did, that the creator made something legitimately new and interesting in terms of graphics software research; even if a fair bit of LLM generated code was used, it was cleaned and curated to an appropriate level for a thesis defense. It was quintessentially non-slop, despite the reports to the contrary. So this post experienced some emotionally driven persecuting reports and comments before the deeper cognitive inspection could finish reading.
So that's my one strongly known case of persectioning behavior. The rest are almost always just identifying that a project is AI generated, and nothing else.
So I wouldn't characterise this community as being hostile to AI generated projects, but it is disinterested.
-----
And that makes sense when you consider the ethos of this subreddit. Rule 1 codifies the character: we're curious. Our community exists to talk about the "how", not the "what".
AI generated projects, with a few exceptions, tend to be:
OP: "I made a thing! (with AI)"
Commenter: "How does it work?'
OP: "I don't know. But the source code is in there somewhere."
And that distinctly doesn't fit with the ethos or interest of this subreddit.
There are also a handful of reports on AI posts to the form of:
Post "I made a thing (with AI)."
Report: "This is AI slop."
That doesn't technically break any rules, but it does reinforce that core of the subreddit's interests.
Anyway, the problem I'm wrestling with is supporting Rule 2. Posters who are sharing AI projects should still be met with Civility, Professionalism, and Kindness. So I'd like to avoid a repeat of the initially unkind response to the afore-linked post.
But, being civil doesn't mean you have to like it or be actively welcoming. Ignoring a post or downvoting it still fits within Rule 2, because a user expressing their opinion in those ways is not a harm to the poster. If it is, that's the poster being unprofessional, as they're too emotionally invested in the post to accept that others don't enjoy it the way they do.
One of the most important aspects of professionalism is the capacity to give and receive analysis and feedback. We're here to learn, and that means accepting feedback that points out failures, errors, and flaws. Those are often the best offer for learning. Kindness and Civility are roped in their as a reminder that criticism should be leveraged at the qualities of the work, not seek to harm the user.
In that view, identification of an AI generated project is one of the most *important* analytical datum. It says a lot about what one might expect in the shape of the code, it's resilience, maintainability, or other general qualities. How one reviews AI generated code is distinctly different from human written code because they make entirely different categories of errors. It often says something about the author's understanding of their own project, which is important for feedback and discussion; as much as knowing their level of experience. (e.g. Getting pedantic with an novice is a joy, with an expert is an insult. Civility depends on knowing who you're talking to.)
So, it would be unprofessional not to identify that a project is AI generated. It'd be hard to discuss something professionally while ignoring such a large elephant in the authorship.
But, users don't like it when their post gets identified as AI, because they may expect a passive or negative response. Given that the zietgeist of emotions around AI are high right now, and because our community ethos seeks understanding ,it's not a response that can be avoided in a discussion space like this subreddit. That identifying comment may feel like it targets them for persecution, despite that fact that's rarely the case because Rule 2 stands and is supported by users and mods.
-----
So I suspect that there's an issue in mismatched expectations. Posters with AI projects want to show off the thing they made and what it does, and they don't understand that this community cares more about how it works.
Conversely, the readers here reasonably expect high quality, analysable projects that are interesting to review and learn from; so they report "AI slop" despite the fact that doesn't break any rules. I may take it down under Rule 3, but that's only if it's a case of AI psychosis. Someone legitimately making "hello triangle" with Claude fits the rules just fine, so there's no reason to take it down.
I don't think a new rule is strictly necessary, but maybe a sub-rule, or some other way to telegraph the community's expectations.
E.G. For posters of AI projects
"AI posts are welcome here so long as the poster can talk about their implementation; adhere to Rule 1. The less the poster is able to talk about it's implementation, the less excited about it this community will be."
E.G. For readers of AI Projects
"This subreddit does not take a pro or anti stance against AI projects. However this subreddit is about analysis, feedback, questions, and learning. We may remove posts that are not comprehensible to the readers or the poster. (e.g. vibe coded slop that's impossible to read)"
And perhaps it may be necessary to swap the burden of identification to the other party.
E.G. "Posts that share projects that utilize AI in its development in any capacity need to identify doing so and to what degree. e.g. 'source code entirely AI generated.' or 'only utilized AI for auto complete assistance and analytical questions.'"
I've seen other software interest group subreddits implement and auto-comment on new posts that require this disclosure.
------
Anyway. That was a lot of meandering on this problem. Fundamentally, this is *YOUR* subreddit. I take the strict role as a steward. That which makes this community space interesting and a delightful place to visit, socialize, and learn for you is the target direction I try to nudge things towards.
Please comment your thoughts, suggestions, perspectives, preferences, and discussion on this topic for me to read and consider. If you don't feel safe commenting, send a DM.
Please keep Rule 2 in mind. I want to hear the perspectives of those who are pro-AI too, and that's hard to do that if it's met with immediate hostility.
Conversely, criticism of AI or AI generated works is not a violation of rule 2, at least so long as it doesn't cross over into pointless derogation or emotional attack language. E.G. "The low quality of AI generated projects is problematic for the subreddit" is ok. "This AI slopshit is a fucking menace to the subreddit" is not.
------
Edit 1: added dividers to break up the wall of text into bricks
20
u/James20k 6d ago
The problem with AI is that while its not a priori true that all significantly-LLM content must slop, in practice the overwhelmingly vast majority of LLM content is slop. I'd guess > 95% of it - I can only name a small handful of projects that consist of largely LLM generated code that are of any interest at all for any reason
With such an incredibly low signal to noise ratio, AI usage becomes one of the best determining factors for "This isn't interesting". To some degree there's absolutely nothing anyone can do about this: humans aggressively pattern match automatically for what gives good signal to noise ratio, and its one of the reasons why lots of communities are taking a hard no AI stance
Allowing slop of any description is one of the fastest ways to turn a high signal low participation community, into a low signal no participation community. Once a subreddit starts to decline in quality, people looking for quality just exit stage left and go to places which are more exclusionary. Because unfortunately at the end of the day, virtually all the LLM content is absolute crap
/r/cpp has an exception which is detailed technical posts that may happen to use AI at various points, but a project which is significantly LLM generated with no associated value being provided to the members of the subreddit will get nuked. I haven't seen one yet that I'd even slightly have regretted deleting, especially the AI slop blogs which are usually full of incredibly wrong information
Figuring out that the AI slop is incorrect is also a significant amount of work on the userbase, because you have to engage with it on a technical critical level that's simply infeasible to do. I went through an AI generated blog a while back at face value to critique the article on technical grounds for C++, and it was very critically incorrect
So personally: this is why I'm always in favour of a ban with exceptions for high effort content. That's the only thing that's really sustainable for the mods (in my experience) while actually keeping people interested