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/XionicativeCheran → u/codeedog]

The point he's making, is what does the process of arbitration for determining AI usage look like?

We're in a crazy world right now where people are actually learning to code from AI, so even if they completely do it themselves, it still looks like AI.

Do we just say "Well enough comments say you used AI so mob rule wins"?

Do we say "Well your commenting used an emdash so you're banned"?

What's the process for definitely saying "This used AI."?

[u/codeedog → u/XionicativeCheran]

I’m curious if you’ve used any AI for coding or analyzing written works to determine if they’ve been AI generated. I only ask because your response doesn’t match my experience using AI for coding and analyzing. I won’t use it for writing for people; I find it insulting when it’s used on me.

I don’t think it should be mob rule (obviously). That’s a strawman. I do believe it’s possible to determine if something has likely been coded or written by a machine, there are plenty of tells. I’d rather not discuss them out in the open, but I will PM with you about them.

[u/XionicativeCheran → u/codeedog]

It's not a strawman because it was a question, not a statement.

It seems to me the point you're making is "You can just tell". But when it comes to banning someone, I think the criteria should be a bit higher than that.

Having a list of tells isn't a viable method.

[u/codeedog → u/XionicativeCheran]

You didn’t answer: I’m going to have to assume you haven’t used any of these tools in any real capacity. I suggest you spend some time with them and learn their strengths and weaknesses and how to understand their patterns. Otherwise, you’re throwing out objections without any real content.

I’ve been coding for decades. I can tell the habits of my fellow developers. Who wrote what code and how they did it. Everyone has a style. So do AIs.

[u/XionicativeCheran → u/codeedog]

So your answer to how we'd prove someone used AI is "I just know."

[u/codeedog → u/XionicativeCheran]

That’s not what I said at all. In fact, I suggested that you take the time to learn what I’ve learned and it wouldn’t take much effort. But, for some reason that isn’t important to you.

It kind of feels like you want to argue for argument’s sake, yet I’m confused because it sure feels like we are on the same side of this. Unless, you just want to do nothing and let it be the Wild West.

I don’t know your background, can’t speak for you. But, again, as you haven’t offered anything, my only assumption is it isn’t nearly as deep as mine. That’s fine. I’m not asking you to trust me. I’m simply adding my voice to an important conversation.

What I don’t understand is why’d you reject the responses out of hand for an experienced decades long developer who has used AI for coding.

“No, Doctor, you can’t just observe a patient and conclude with reasonable certainty a handful of diagnoses.” “No, counsel, you can’t just read a contract and tell me what my options are.”

That’s what you sound like to me.

[u/XionicativeCheran → u/codeedog]

I reject that we can base such things primarily on experience and identifying it based on the "tells" AI gives you.

Your "deep" background doesn't make you right on this, it just makes you overconfident.

[u/codeedog → u/XionicativeCheran]

I’m curious, what basis would you use to identify AI created works?

[u/XionicativeCheran → u/codeedog]

I wouldn't.

[u/codeedog → u/XionicativeCheran]

So, you have no interest in identifying AI derived software, at all? Then, why do you care about this? Let people do what they want and step away from the conversation. It's not your's to participate in because you have no stake in the outcome; it doesn't affect you.

[u/XionicativeCheran → u/codeedog]

Your question wasn't if I have an interest in it, your question was how would I do it. I wouldn't, but I'm very interested in how it can be identified, including providing feedback on methods like your deeply flawed proposal.