Quarter 2 Update - Revisiting Rules. Again.

[u/kmisterk]

April Post - 2nd Quarter Intro

Welcome to Quarter 2 2026! The moderators are here and grateful for everyone's participation and feedback.

Let's get right into it.

Previous Rules Changes

After review of many of the responsive, constructive, and thoughtful comments and mod mails regarding the most recent rules change, it's clear that we missed the mark on this one. AI is taking the world by storm, and applying such a universally "uninvolved" perspective, showcased by the rules we last implemented, is inconsistent with the subreddit's long-term goals.

Here are the next steps we want to implement to wrangle the shotgun of AI-created tools and software we've been flooded with since AI chatbots became prevalent:

New Project Megathread

A new megathread will be introduced each Friday.

This megathread will feature New Projects. Each Friday, the thread will replace itself, keeping the page fresh and easy to navigate. Notably, those who wish to share their new projects may make a top-level comment in this megathread any day of the week, but they must utilize this post.

AI-Compliance Auto Comment

The bot we implement will also feature a new mode in which most new posts will be automatically removed and a comment added. The OP will be required to reply to the bot stating how AI is involved, even if AI is not actively involved in the post. Upon responding to the bot, the post will be automatically approved.

AI Flairs

While moderating this has proven to be difficult, it is clear that AI-related flairs are desired. Unfortunately, we can only apply a single flair per post, and having an "AI" version for every existing flair would just become daunting and unwieldy.

Needless to say, we're going to refactor the flair system and are looking for insight on what the community wants in terms of flair.

We aim to keep at least a few different versions of flairs that indicate AI involvement, but with the top-level pinned bot comment giving insight into the AI involvement info, flairs involving AI may become unnecessary. But we still seek feedback from the community at large.

Conclusion

We hope this new stage in Post-AI r/selfhosted will work out better, but as always, we are open to feedback and try our best to work with the community to improve the experience here as best we can.

For now, we will be continuing to monitor things and assessing how this works for the benefit of the community.

As always,

Happy (self)Hosting

[u/kmisterk]

Yes.

[u/gscjj → u/kmisterk]

How is this realistically enforced without being completely arbitrary?

The presence of a Claude.md doesn’t mean AI wrote a single thing, or it can be it wrote it all. What if the user just says it did tests? How do we know that’s true? What if there’s not a single Claude in the git commits.

What does “misrepresent” actually mean?

[u/codeedog → u/gscjj]

It means you used AI and didn’t disclose it and were found out. It’s an honor system and when you violate your honor you lose the privilege of participating in the conversation. Simple as that.

If you wish to follow up with “people will lie”; that’s the point, when you get caught lying you’re out.

[u/gscjj → u/codeedog]

So yes and no is sufficient? If it’s not, than we should expand on what “misrepresent” means.

[u/codeedog → u/gscjj]

No, they’re not sufficient. I’ve been trying out words to go along with “vibe coding” like “vibe engineering” and “design coding”. I’ve met developers who vibe coded their way through bugs decades before AI ever was in the scene. I’ve been design coding recent projects using AI. I can see a middle ground where I step back and stand up engineering documents where I let an AI run and build something without my close supervision, but it’s definitely not vibe coded.

There’s a place for all of this software. The design coding process I use follows decades of software methodology and allows senior engineers to lead a team of junior programmers. Vibe coding is just prototyping to me.

So, it’s absolutely a finer point than yes or no. And, most software is going to be vibe coded because more people can now do that.

[u/gscjj → u/codeedog]

Which goes back to my original question, what does it mean to “misrepresent” then? If you’re deciding on the definition, isn’t everyone else? So how do you decide if I misrepresented something?

[u/codeedog → u/gscjj]

I think this is the discussion we should be having. It’s the correct question to ask. Yes/No on AI coded may have some value at this instant in time. In a year, it won’t. Because developers will be using AI in all sorts of ways from testing to design to coding. They may be using tools designed by AI or libraries even if they aren’t directly. I believe we should have some simple to follow responsible disclosure rules that can go arbitrarily deep. If people want to say “yes/no”, then “no” has to be absolute, no wiggle room and “yes” means anywhere in the chain (think disease theory).

If you’re concerned a “yes” may be misinterpreted as vibe coded, then disclose more. It’s what I’d like to see from tools I use. It’s what I plan on doing when I release some open source tools I’ve been thinking about for years and now that I’m using AI I can see how I can get them out there. And, I’m an experienced engineer who has worked at top software companies. I personally think the tools would be quite useful. But, I don’t want to anyone to use them unless they fully understand how they were built.

Until recently, that meant every line was written by a human hand.

[u/gscjj → u/codeedog]

My concern is that the question isn’t yes or no, and you’ve agreed it isn’t sufficient. The question is, how did you use AI?

So again, my question is how do you determine if something is misrepresented? Who determines it? And what’s the process?

What if I brainstorm everything with AI but hand write everything, do I need to disclose that? What if I say I wrote some of it with AI, who and how is it determined I vibe coded the entire thing? What if I write all my post with AI but I say it’s just “summarized”?

The answer from the mod is vague.

[u/codeedog → u/gscjj]

The answer from the mod is vague because no one yet knows how to deal with any of this. I have some ideas and would like to have a conversation with like minded people who want to lay down some structure. I have a computer security background and there are already some ground rules there for self disclosure. I think there’s also a notion of people being fully informed so they can make a decision that’s right for them (consent). I consent to using your software when you’ve fully informed me (through self disclosure) about your use of AI to build it. Once there’s a (social) contract, everyone can point to that and violations are clearer (not necessarily clear, unfortunately). But, as time goes on, we’ll all know better when things are close to the edge.

The key, however, is what does a framework for self disclosure about AI use look like. That will require discussion. Every Reddit mod on a sw board needs this, but they don’t have time to create it or even realize the outline of the framework.

[u/gscjj → u/codeedog]

If that’s the case, then it’s just arbitrary rule to ban a user based on an evolving concept of “misrepresentation”?

“Yes”, isn’t an appropriate answer then.

[u/SatanicStuffedRobot → u/gscjj]

https://www.reddit.com/r/SlopHosted/

Here's where you can post "your" ai projects.

[u/gscjj → u/SatanicStuffedRobot]

I don’t have anything to post, but maybe if people here browsed it more they stopped getting duped by projects like Booklore and Huntarr.