Some of these are, in my opinion, extreme. From their README:
===
Condones the use of AI/LLMs to ingest the project's contents. This can be for "understanding the code better", "finding bugs/security issues/optimizations". This tag is to be used independently for projects that generally reject the use of AI in their code repositories, issue trackers, and sponsorships, but still encourage or permit users to use LLMs to ingest their code base. This is independent of a project's licensing. This tag is to be used for the maintainers' statements about, or reactions to, the usage of LLMs/AIs to ingest the repo.
The reason we still find this worthy of a tag is because it:
- means that the LLM, often provided by a company with very little respect for copyright, will then save a copy of that open source repo for use in it's future outputs.
- still encourages people to use LLMs and carves out a special situation in which they're still OK, but as this repo is against AI/LLMs for more than just "poor code quality" reasons, we still believe this is not a good course of action as it still promotes the use of inherently unethical tooling.
Evidence may be, but is not limited to:
- An AI or Contribution policy that carves out a space for "using LLMs to understand the code" or "finding bugs"
- Core maintainer using or accepting the use of AI for finding bugs or security issues
===
If I understand it correctly, if someone merely opens an issue in an open-source project and says something like "Claude helped me find this issue", and the maintainers don't immediately close it, then they get on the list in the repo.
I dislike LLMs, but if a bug is a bug, then I will fix it, typically without complaint. That is enough to get added to this list. The "curators" demand you accost reporters for any mention of LLM usage.
They don't demand that you do it. They just flag it as such. Just like how the ESRB doesn't demand you remove crude humor from your game - you might just get a T rating for it.
While I'd agree that the only harm being done here is branding a project as being "tainted" in some way, much like a parental warning sticker on an album marks it as "offensive" in some way, but that still leaves the question of what a project is supposed to do to avoid the label.
If someone reports a bug to you and says that they used AI to find it, then what are the options? If you fix the bug you get the tainted status because you "accepted the use of AI for finding bugs or security issues" so what's the alternative? Leaving the bug in your code? Patch it, but also send an angry reply to the person who submitted it telling them to never do that again? How does that help your project?
Functionally, this just makes the "Condones LLM Ingestion" category entirely useless. That still leaves tags like "Vibecoded" or "Gen AI 'Art'" tags useful, but it pretty much guarantees that people will be put off and dismissive of the entire effort. Extremism to the point of absurdity only hurts their cause.
This feels like a hobby or special interest rather than a list of genuine software recommendations, unless you're running CoffeeBSD and browsing the web with Netsurf.
The fact that this list is so long and grows longer every single day just shows how this line in the sand has become untenable to uphold in reality. I suppose it's good to be informed at least?
Anybody else remember the latch batch of old farts who retired early because they refused to learn how to use a computer? I guess we’re onto a new batch of old farts.
Part of me understands the sentiment behind a list like this but disavowing this much just feels impractical. Suggesting that anyone who wants to do 3D game development at all might be able to use LÖVE as an alternative (no shade to them, I know some folks doing cool LÖVR stuff) just doesn't feel that helpful. And Servo? Seriously? The one browser engine with a very stringent do-not-send-us-AI-generated-PRs policy? I dunno man. I think we all have our own personal lines and they draw theirs pretty harshly.
Some of these are, in my opinion, extreme. From their README:
===
Condones the use of AI/LLMs to ingest the project's contents. This can be for "understanding the code better", "finding bugs/security issues/optimizations". This tag is to be used independently for projects that generally reject the use of AI in their code repositories, issue trackers, and sponsorships, but still encourage or permit users to use LLMs to ingest their code base. This is independent of a project's licensing. This tag is to be used for the maintainers' statements about, or reactions to, the usage of LLMs/AIs to ingest the repo.
The reason we still find this worthy of a tag is because it:
- means that the LLM, often provided by a company with very little respect for copyright, will then save a copy of that open source repo for use in it's future outputs.
- still encourages people to use LLMs and carves out a special situation in which they're still OK, but as this repo is against AI/LLMs for more than just "poor code quality" reasons, we still believe this is not a good course of action as it still promotes the use of inherently unethical tooling.
Evidence may be, but is not limited to:
- An AI or Contribution policy that carves out a space for "using LLMs to understand the code" or "finding bugs" - Core maintainer using or accepting the use of AI for finding bugs or security issues
===
If I understand it correctly, if someone merely opens an issue in an open-source project and says something like "Claude helped me find this issue", and the maintainers don't immediately close it, then they get on the list in the repo.
Yes, it is a deeply unserious list.
I dislike LLMs, but if a bug is a bug, then I will fix it, typically without complaint. That is enough to get added to this list. The "curators" demand you accost reporters for any mention of LLM usage.
They don't demand that you do it. They just flag it as such. Just like how the ESRB doesn't demand you remove crude humor from your game - you might just get a T rating for it.
While I'd agree that the only harm being done here is branding a project as being "tainted" in some way, much like a parental warning sticker on an album marks it as "offensive" in some way, but that still leaves the question of what a project is supposed to do to avoid the label.
If someone reports a bug to you and says that they used AI to find it, then what are the options? If you fix the bug you get the tainted status because you "accepted the use of AI for finding bugs or security issues" so what's the alternative? Leaving the bug in your code? Patch it, but also send an angry reply to the person who submitted it telling them to never do that again? How does that help your project?
Functionally, this just makes the "Condones LLM Ingestion" category entirely useless. That still leaves tags like "Vibecoded" or "Gen AI 'Art'" tags useful, but it pretty much guarantees that people will be put off and dismissive of the entire effort. Extremism to the point of absurdity only hurts their cause.
This feels like a hobby or special interest rather than a list of genuine software recommendations, unless you're running CoffeeBSD and browsing the web with Netsurf.
The fact that this list is so long and grows longer every single day just shows how this line in the sand has become untenable to uphold in reality. I suppose it's good to be informed at least?
Anybody else remember the latch batch of old farts who retired early because they refused to learn how to use a computer? I guess we’re onto a new batch of old farts.
Love how the Linux kernel is ironically on the list, and yet they willfully ignore it and keep using Linux.
Ironically, the maintainers of this repository are equally talented as vibe coders, since they simply maintain a markdown file and nothing else.
it recommends SiriDB as an alternative to PostgreSQL :)
Part of me understands the sentiment behind a list like this but disavowing this much just feels impractical. Suggesting that anyone who wants to do 3D game development at all might be able to use LÖVE as an alternative (no shade to them, I know some folks doing cool LÖVR stuff) just doesn't feel that helpful. And Servo? Seriously? The one browser engine with a very stringent do-not-send-us-AI-generated-PRs policy? I dunno man. I think we all have our own personal lines and they draw theirs pretty harshly.
The Other OS section should include TempleOS.
When I read "open-slopware" I wanted to see OSSlop Adobe forks Now I'm disappointed -_-
Here comes the AI inquisition!
[dead]
[dead]