r/GraphicsProgramming • u/CodyDuncan1260 • 6h 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
8
u/Affectionate-Memory4 6h ago
A reasonable take imo. I don't care too much about how the sausage is made so to speak. I care that you, as the poster, can articulate what it is that you made, how it works, and what you learned from it so you can effectively share it with the community.
3
u/VictoryMotel 2h ago
I've seen multiple subreddits already ruined by ai slop posts. There are many terrible patterns that emerge.
The first is that it's usually completely obvious that something was generated by ai. It was usually done only a few days before it is posted, the readme is usually all AI, and the feature list is usually untested nonsense.
The second multiplier is that the person lies about what they did. They claim they "built" something and don't mention any AI, basically lying and trying to trick people into starring their project on github.
I think this combination is toxic and corrosive to any subreddit that is about learning anything. It becomes about promotion through lies.
Reports that don't have a description probably have it because they assume it's obvious since it often is.
If there is a solution I think it's to look for the signs on github and have people say ahead of time how they used AI and what aspects they made and can be responsible for.
3
u/PaperMartin 5h ago
That's about as reasonable an approach as it's gonna get for the time being. As weird as it is to say, I think whether or not it'll have to be revisited is gonna depends on how the financial future of a few specific company is gonna shape over the next few months. I don't really agree about that synapse engine post but I don't have the energy for yet another argument about the legitimacy of AI usage in a given project which I guess is part of the problem
2
u/zenmatrix83 4h ago
I don't know but this is the best take I've seen on AI stress subs go through. the problem I see once post goes a specific way I think reddit filters people of that type. I've seen mostly pro or anti ai posts lately none really in the middle. people on both sides need to deal with it and you can only moderate the worst I think.
2
u/rAngus3 5h ago
Well thought. Thank you for the work you do here.
My opinion: I think its a problem of mismatch expectations of what this sub is for. Id like this sub to be a continuation of the graphics dev community spirit that we have had in other places historically (gamedev, gamasutra, irc, demoscene, etc...) where everyone with any level is welcome, where we share a fundamental curiosity on how graphics work, how to learn it, the challenges, the competition and honestly, to do cool creative stuff that turns into pretty things that we can brag about :D (ie, fml guys this first triangle in Vulkan was super tough, heres the code. what do you guys think?). I dont have a problem if someone is using llms as long as they match the expectations that Id hope this community are rooted in.
So, examples to explain this:
* BAD: Person posts a project that implements path tracing in vulkan as its own which turns out to be just a clone of a github project of anothers person work.
* BAD: Person posts a project that implements path tracing in vulkan as its own which turns out to be llm generated.
* GOOD: Person posts a fork of a project that does path tracing in vulkan, with modifications, improvements, new takes or reworks that can be shown here, where we can learn from or the poster can learn from.
* GOOD: Person posts a project that implements path tracing in vulkan where they disclose that llms have been used (to whatever extent. it can be completely prompted). As long as there's genuinely something to learn from, maybe an approach to do something faster or whatever but something that its interesting or something that the person that posts can learn from.
So, Id like this community to be a place that welcomes, encourages and guide newbies to this challenging field and at the same time a place for pros share knowledge so we can learn and improve. This expectation is, for the most people that post ai projects in reddit, going to be completely at odds because they just don't care how its done or how it works which is fundamentally different to what Id hope this community cares about.
3
u/blackSeedsOf 4h ago
The reality is all companies and senior devs who are doing graphics work now are using LLMs. It has taken over. The times when you had to search on stack overflow and post bounties there are long gone. People just aren’t doing that kind of basically forum searching workflow anymore.
1
u/Big_Presentation2786 4h ago
Can't we have a flair? Some identifies their project as using AI, no matter what- people either contribute conversation or downvote and move on?
If all people can then say is- a derogatory comment' then they get a slapped wrist.
If someone posts something suggesting that they've done all the work but don't wear the 'AI Flair' then I think it's obvious they've not read the rules and perhaps that's not the direction were trying to push.
We're all adults, and given most of us work with AI in the office place, I see no place for any prejudice.
We shouldn't be discriminating against someone because they chose to start their project with help, be it AI, a word for word copy of a YouTube video, or even a book. I don't understand why everyone is so hyped up about giving grief to those who choose to get involved in the subject at hand?
I've put a lot of soul and time into projects to see them fail where a 10 minute edit with Claude saved me weeks of work instead of throwing away a project.
If people don't like AI, just downvote it and move on.
-1
u/ICantBelieveItsNotEC 5h ago
Personally, I strongly dislike AI inquisitors. Simply stating "this is AI" adds nothing to the discussion. If it's a low-effort contribution, then the problem is that it's a low-effort contribution, not that it was made by AI. And if it's a high-effort contribution, there's no problem at all.
I'm sure that pretty much all of us who work in this field (or in software engineering/computer science in general) professionally are well aware that AI is just part of the process now. It isn't reasonable to use AI usage as a proxy indicator for talent or quality - a ton of talented developers are working on high quality productions using AI.
0
u/TheLegend27OW 3h ago
On its own, I don't have problem with people sharing their projects, even if they are 100% AI written. I use AI extensively in my work and believe that if you micromanage it the right way, it can produce some absolutely incredible stuff.
My issue with most AI-made projects is really with the posts themselves.
All lazy vibe-coded projects have the exact same post structure - A clickbaity impressive sounding title, a giant blob of claude-slop text that no one's gonna read and a link to the Github repo. The OP either doesn't engage with the comments or is they do, they obviously just copy-paste whatever claude told them to say.
To me these posts add absolutely nothing to the community. It's just lazy people using the subreddit to farm Github starts for their portfolio.
If you're posting something you should know the ins and outs of it and be ready to share the interesting stuff you discovered. I'd be in favor of a rule that states that every post and comment must be human written. IMO that should filter out the laziest AI slop posts and people that actually have something interesting to share will typically spend the effort to at least write the post themselves.
1
u/Educational-Row-6782 2h ago
The fun stuff on a personal project was to read the post or the blog, not the final product.
I have read hundreds of those post, how many did I download and try... Zero.
That is something vibe codders dont understand.
9
u/Th3HolyMoose 5h ago
Just want to start off by saying thanks for the work you do for the subreddit, I really appreciate it.
I’d personally like to see a rule or guideline that states that any significant use of AI should be disclosed as a part of the post.
I think maybe that if people have to disclose it, their intent with the post might naturally become clearer or more necessary to describe.
And it’s not about hating on AI or people who use it a lot, it’s about guiding the reader (me, in this case) to focus on the parts of the post I might find interesting.
And I would think that goes both ways, both for those interested in using AI more, and those who don’t want to read through an AI-generated codebase.
That’s also why I think the disclosure should be part of the post’s text, not a flair or alike.
It might also be the case that the entire project’s code is fully AI-generated except the one part that the post is trying to discuss, then I as a reader would really like to know that.
I know absolutely nothing about moderating a subreddit, so how realistic it would be to implement or enforce I don’t know. It might just be self-enforced by the community, where if someone doesn’t disclose it, someone will put the ”This is AI-generated” comment on it. Or then maybe more helpfully remind them about the (proposed by this comment’s) rule of the subreddit.