AI-generated contributions are not accepted.
Pull requests, patches, documentation, translations, issues, or other contributions that are substantially generated by generative AI or large language models will not be accepted.
Contributors are expected to understand, author, and take responsibility for the work they submit. Tools such as linters, formatters, autocomplete, spellcheckers, and other non-generative development tools are unaffected by this policy.
https://github.com/pixelfed/pixelfed#ai-generated-contributions
https://github.com/joinloops/loops-server#ai-generated-contributions
We heard you! We are not accepting any AI or agentic code contributions, and will keep building Pixelfed by hand.
You must log in or register to comment.
In case anyone else was also confused by this: this is about code, not content.
For now…
It’s decentralized platform. Nobody has the capability to impose such ban beyond their own instance.
This is about the official codebase, both server/website and app. Anyone could fork it, but si far the original remains the most used service by far.
Good. Instagram is filled with them to the point you can’t tell what’s real and what’s not.
It’s about source code contributions. I’m pretty lazy sometimes about following post links, sometimes I worry about articles full of ads and other nonsense. But to not read the actual content of a relatively short text post is a level of laziness I have not yet achieved.
It was probably wishful thinking, borne of utter desperation to see that change made:-)
Ooof!! My bad lol
I’m extremely tired today and read that completely differently.
well that was quick.
Hell yeah!
Good.
How would they know though? If I use Claude to make a contribution and tweak some things, it would be impossible to know unless I actively tell them I used Claude when generating my code?
“How would they know if my contribution is actually compatible with their open source license? I could just contribute code from an incompatible license, or proprietary codebase, without telling anyone.” This was supposedly an actual argument against FOSS licenses back in the days. Yeah, you can’t be 100% sure, but: You made your intent clear. And that’s honestly what most people care about. Then all you need to do is do some rudimentary checks for quality and maybe do a quick vibe-check (heh) on the person contributing.
Okey thank you. My question was an actual question, if there was like a “tell” or something! :D
There’s dozens.
Large commits, over documentation, and not being able to answer questions about the OR are good starts usually.
They won’t. These rules are about making sure the author reviews. It’s pretty easy to tell when Claude makes a PR, but it’s impossible to tell you used Qwen, fixed the duplicate code, removed useless verbose comments, and moved things to the right place. Reviewers are perfectly happy with the later.
Prob banning ppl from running agents that are automatically pushing to github and spamming all day
If you’ve seen a typical GenAI pull request, it’s blatantly obvious. If it has been curated well, sure it’s probably not feasible to know, but “slop” is easy to tell, and the target users have very slop contributions.
It’s impossible, I’ll never understand why anti ai repos draw such a hard line instead of saying hey we won’t even look at 1000+ LOC PRs or design reworks with no discussion.
Both of those are pretty reasonable policies that will kill most of the fly by AI requests.
Yes, and I do agree with this.
They won’t…
Knowing piefed they were using AI, got called out, and are now “banning” it for the optics.
It would be worse if they actually believed it, but they probably don’t.
I still think it’s odd to ban AI outright, it’s incredibly democratizing for smaller platforms and enables them to keep up with without getting bogged down in the drudgery of bug fixes / testing.
If you can tell it is AI generated, then it’s going to be more trouble than it is worth.
Note “substantially” AI generated. If you’ve been paying attention to popular open source projects you’ve seen the sort of “contributions” and of course they should be dismissed.
If you have had generally good experience with GenAI, think not of your direct experience, but rather your experience with how others have used it, and that’s more representative of the issues.
Keep up with who? Developing good software is not a race, unless you’re a corporation.
