Flathub has replaced its blanket ban on AI-generated applications with a disclosure requirement. Reviewers can still reject submissions, and manifests remain off-limits for AI-generated content.
Flathub has replaced its blanket ban on AI-generated applications with a disclosure requirement. Reviewers can still reject submissions, and manifests remain off-limits for AI-generated content.
Probably the right decision given there’s no way to truly tell what level of AI generation or effort within the project itself with AI has taken place.
I understand the willingness to ban low effort low quality one shot projects, but given most software nowadays incorporating some level of LLMs, I can’t ever see a blanket ban working out anywhere.
that’s like saying that because we can’t all always 100% tell if someone is cheating at an online game we should forget about banning cheaters - you can prohibit a behavior you aren’t always able to sus out and use a combination of detection heuristics and making that behavior unwelcome (i will say i believe the correct policy is to label projects which discernibly use llms rather than banning them)
“It’s too op, I can’t compete, nerf it”
do you understand what an analogy is?
i don’t think llm content is cheating; i think it’s usually garbage and that slop projects are very rarely maintained for more than a few months
if people want to risk it they can risk it if they want i just want it labeled or in a separate category so i don’t have to waste my own time
i just find the argument that it is impossible to tell something 100% means you shouldn’t bother deeply suspect since we don’t apply that to other things we care about
Cheaters are annoying because they win.
If the new projects were all as useless as you claim, you wouldn’t compare them to cheating.
This is a direct contradiction. My conclusion: You’re salty that they are more useful than your projects.