I realize it’s tiring to rehash the same points over and over in the comments. I’m as uninterested as anyone else in discussing the minutiae of whether something is slop or not. But the mods have to realize that these discussions are a symptom of the internal division in this community. Banning these discussions won’t solve this, it just makes the problem invisible and it automatically gives preference to one side. I’m not terribly surprised, since this site has made a similar choice before: discussing the ethical considerations of our job remains off topic for the most part.
I just wish the mod team was direct enough to say that they don’t consider a large part of this community valuable enough, and are once again siding with the default path of pretending everything is a-ok as long as we ignore the problems in the industry (mainly, how the present changes are a direct threat to the livelihood to the majority of software developers, the rise of anti-intellectualism in the industry, and the devaluing of knowledge).
Hear hear. Playing disagreement police always results in pushing out the people disagreeing with the “neutral” state. What’s neutral depends on the specifics of the community, but this post makes it clear that from moderation’s viewpoint, LLM usage is neutral and any sort of disagreement with that or avoidance of LLMs is not. Removing comments will not erase disagreements, it’ll just push out the underrepresented group, until you’re left with a nazi LLM booster bar. I’m sure moderators are well aware of this. I want an explicit confirmation whether that’s the intention, so that I don’t waste my time.
I was withholding judgment on this change in policy, but after seeing how moderation has been applied in the latest OpenBSD story, together with the mod statement that there’s now a “strict stance on removing posts that neutrally discuss whether a project used AI”, I have to say I’m incredibly disappointed.
I realize it’s tiring to rehash the same points over and over in the comments. I’m as uninterested as anyone else in discussing the minutiae of whether something is slop or not. But the mods have to realize that these discussions are a symptom of the internal division in this community. Banning these discussions won’t solve this, it just makes the problem invisible and it automatically gives preference to one side. I’m not terribly surprised, since this site has made a similar choice before: discussing the ethical considerations of our job remains off topic for the most part.
I just wish the mod team was direct enough to say that they don’t consider a large part of this community valuable enough, and are once again siding with the default path of pretending everything is a-ok as long as we ignore the problems in the industry (mainly, how the present changes are a direct threat to the livelihood to the majority of software developers, the rise of anti-intellectualism in the industry, and the devaluing of knowledge).
score 4 · canonical
Hear hear. Playing disagreement police always results in pushing out the people disagreeing with the “neutral” state. What’s neutral depends on the specifics of the community, but this post makes it clear that from moderation’s viewpoint, LLM usage is neutral and any sort of disagreement with that or avoidance of LLMs is not. Removing comments will not erase disagreements, it’ll just push out the underrepresented group, until you’re left with a
naziLLM booster bar. I’m sure moderators are well aware of this. I want an explicit confirmation whether that’s the intention, so that I don’t waste my time.score 4 · canonical