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.
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.
Keep up with who? Developing good software is not a race, unless you’re a corporation.
This. This 1000%.
Software is not a mass-produced commodity that has to be distributed as fast as possible. People already have a limited attention span for the features of already existing software so speed running even more does not create value.
At some point we’re going to have to rekon with the fact that creating, reviewing, and provisioning aren’t the real bottlenecks.
Humans using the software is the bottle neck. Humans trusting the software is the bottleneck. Humans building communities and cultures around specific tools and methodologies is the bottleneck.
At the end of the day you’re user base isn’t going to be “AI” agents. It’s going to be people.
Unless you’re Nvidia, who would love to sell their GPUs to a captive audience of agents that control all the capital in the economy.
https://techcrunch.com/2026/05/20/jensen-huang-says-hes-found-a-brand-new-200b-market-for-nvidia/
:^)
I genuinely question if they’re thinking very far into the future. Billions of agents doing what? We didn’t need a rogue AI to turn us into paper clips; we’re going to do that ourselves. Is he thinking local AI at everyone’s computer? People barely use the features of the machines they have now.
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.
The Colt was “democratizing”, but regardless of how liberally you interpret that (eg.: whoever can make the gun has more power over its distribution), it was at the cost of getting more people killed.
Sometimes, ready access to a technology is not a good thing. Imagine if we all could make nukes.
Imagine if a computer program were a nuke, yall!!! jfc.
Imagine if a computer program could launch the nukes. Or maybe don’t. That’s a strange game. The only winning move is not to play.
Allowing the use of something that is ruining the internet, mental health, the environment, art, politics etc. may demoralize some developers and get a lot of people to dislike and not use your project, something that is way more important for a social media than the speed LLMs allegedly provide
Humans?
It’s not humans. It’s the AI!!! They’re taking over!! They’re everywhere! They gonna kil eveyrbody1!!1!
\s
Open source projects that allow those humans to contribute can also demoralize some developers and get a lot of people to dislike and not use the project
deleted by creator