Let's celebrate work that is 100% human-made
human-made.work65 points by supryan 14 hours ago
65 points by supryan 14 hours ago
What are the rules? Is it okay to use autocomplete? Are spell checkers accepted? What if I used an AI chatbot to figure out something instead of a traditional search engine?
Is it ok if I used a compiler and didn't write the assembly code by hand?
It's hard to tell if you're mocking the parent's fallacy or contributing to it.
I suppose the argument being made is more about the meaning of human made rather than GenAI.
You're implying compilers now utilize generative AI somehow? I doubt that very much.
Nope. You also can't use a CPU made by big ASML machines. If you decide to go with a mechanical computer I am not sure if a lathe is ok.
None of these amount to AI making something. Before AI, it’s been humans who put the words on the paper, who put the strokes on the canvas, who put the notes on the sheet. Spell-checking and auto-completion have existed before AI and do not fundamentally change the process.
Since this project singles out AI (likely generative AI using machine learning), it seems evident to me that it rules out any involvement which does fundamentally change the process, i.e. what people otherwise do when creating.
(Yes, one could argue that e.g. word processing or printing have also fundamentally changed the process, and that is absolutely true, but each of those has changed the process differently than machine learning has, and clearly this website considers the changes made by AI undesirable in some ways, not the changes made by word processing or printing.)
The question remains. Where do you draw the line? What are the rules?
The site only states "There's only one rule: generative AI cannot be used in the creation of the project.", without defining any further rules, nor does it clarify the exact definition of "creation of the project".
Like, what if you included a library in your project that was vibe-coded (but your main code wasn't), would your project be considered as "human-made"?
> The question remains. Where do you draw the line? What are the rules?
These questions absolutely remain, but their scope is not nearly as wide as some people here make it out to be. Of course, narrowing it down further might be nice.
"You must nail down every single detail in objective terms" is a dishonest requirement we, as engineers, reach for when we don't like something subjectively. It's petty. It's not honest.
If you're an engineer, you'll understand why it's not petty. You do not want ambiguity in engineering. If you cannot even define what it is that you're campaigning for, then it's just random ramblings with no substance. No one's going to take you seriously if you can't even define what you're asking of others.
> Like, what if you included a library in your project that was vibe-coded (but your main code wasn't), would your project be considered as "human-made"?
Of course not.
What if the library was human-made, but that library included a library that was vibe-coded?
If that's not okay, what if the library included a library which included a library that was vibe-coded?
I think you know the answer :rolleyes:
Hopefully things are not so bad yet that it's an unlikely situation
I don't know the answer, so please do enlighten.
Any dependency on a vibe-coded library, however indirect, makes an application not 100% human made (since the application relies on the library for some of its featutes).
If that's going to be your definition, then it's going to be extremely difficult, if not impossible to have a 100% human made program, unless you've personally hand-coded the entire OS, or you've verified beyond doubt that no vibe-coded dependency exist in the entire dependency chain - both build and runtime, direct and indirect.
I'm not sure how feasible verification of that would be, unless we have some "certified 100% human" certification program of some sort, with an external auditing agency or something - because you can't trust humans, they will 100% lie.