Let's celebrate work that is 100% human-made
human-made.work
human-made.work
It's OK to use the term "human made" to mean "not the output of genAI". There's no "gotcha" to be scored here.
> Help us to signify and share projects done by humans (not AI).
Here is nothing about GenAI specifically.
Who else could be asked if not the ones that set up this collection?
There's only one rule: generative AI cannot be used in the creation of the project.Hello games made a game called No Man's Sky which has VERY heavy use of procedural generation. Same as Minecraft.
If someone were to make the same games using genAi, would it be less impressive, even if the output was 'better'?
But even if the answer was no, I don't see the relationship to what I said. I never commented on "impressiveness".
the question here really depends on how much the procedural generator is an artwork in itself, and how much that would be lessened by using AI to generate the worlds instead.
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 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"?
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.
Of course not.
If that's not okay, what if the library included a library which included a library that was vibe-coded?
Hopefully things are not so bad yet that it's an unlikely situation
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.
You don't need to have personally hand-coded the OS, of course, you just need a OS that's not vibe-coded, and hopefully that just means avoiding Windows.
Even if you actually consider the OS a dependency, which is a stretch
And hopefully vibe coding doesn't get as widespread to become hard to avoid it.
That's a problem for anyone coding a modern app these days, not just npm users.
> You don't need to have personally hand-coded the OS, of course, you just need a OS that's not vibe-coded, and hopefully that just means avoiding Windows.
That's a problem too, because Linux is already accepting gen-AI code, and you can bet your arse that Google and Apple are too. So that just leaves the niche OSes, and although I don't know of their individual stances, the trust problem still remains - how do you know they're not using gen-AI in some shape or form, without some sort of formal certification and auditing system?
I wouldn't really say that
> That's a problem too, because Linux is already accepting gen-AI code
If it's accurately reviewed it's fine for me, although yeah, it wouldn't fit the 100% human definition.
Just as you can make GPL software for closed-source operating systems, though, I think you could ignore the OS in a definition of 100% human-made software.
We can agree to disagree, but pretty much every modern app uses dependencies at some level, and that's a problem for everyone. Sure, npm is probably the worst of them all, but even the so called "safe" Rust is very heavy on dependencies - just look at any popular Rust project these days. It's only a matter of time until a malicious or poor quality code makes its way in a popular Rust project... or any other project for that matter. Just see the state all the popular FOSS projects are in, they're all getting swamped by LLM-driven PRs, so much so that some projects (like Ladybird) have decided to stop accepting PRs completely.
The problem isn't just about whether or not the code is accurately reviewed, because under pressure, humans are bound to slip up - just take a look at what happened with the XZ project, it has now become a textbook example of how projects can be compromised. LLMs have made the situation worse, it's only a matter of time until we see a second or third Jia Tan due to the pressure maintainers are in - or we see more FOSS projects stop accepting PRs altogether.
In such a scenario, every dependency is a liability.
And if you ignore the OS, that means you're drawing an arbitrary line in the sand - because how would you define what consists of an "OS"?
Going back to our example app, what if the app's dependency is Qt, and if Qt has vibe-coded components - by your original definition a few comments ago, that would make your app not human-made. But many distros also include Qt components OOTB due to some dependency or other (eg for KDE), so that would mean the OS is also not 100% human-made right?
But this also means you won't be able to work most white-collared jobs, as almost every such job these days involves operating a computer running a mainstream OS. But I guess there are still some jobs out there where you could be operating a legacy OS, such as as some banks and other financial institutions, maybe you could learn COBOL and work on mainframes or something.
And naturally your boycott would also include most of the modern web, because most web browsers these days have some sort of AI involvement or the other, not to mention most mainstream websites as well. So there's a good chance that even though you're working on old-school mainframes, you may still need to do your timesheets or taxes or whatever on a modern website. Or send emails at the very least. So most modern jobs would be a no-go.
So I hope you've got your line well defined, because "anything remotely involving AI" is a pretty loaded phrase that could completely cut you off modern technology and workplaces, and you could end up living the life of a hermit, or a medieval-era farmer or something. Which, I'm not saying is a bad or impossible thing - I know at least a couple of people who quit IT completely, took up farming and have gone off-grid - its certainly doable, so the question is, how badly you hate AI, and how far are you willing to go?
I think I draw the line at a place that makes sense. (And mine was first, but I don’t care, as long as the movement takes off.)
come on
But I'd rather celebrate high quality software than how the software is made.
I appreciate that people put the effort in what they do, but the effort could be spent on other activities that are not "typing".
They'll do this no matter how bad you try to make them feel. In fact, belittling them tends to have the opposite effect.
Good. I wish we would kill 100% of the "jobs" out there and we could all start working on the things that we want instead of spending the best years of our lives doing stupid bullshit.
We should work to eliminate all work. That should be something we strive towards. The end of work you don't want to do.
If you are doing something, that's work. You are against doing things you don't like. That's a different topic.
There, is that better? You shouldn't have to do a job you hate (or indeed a job you love) to have the right to continue to exist in our society, and that's the current state of affairs more or less. You work, or society is happy to let you die. I want to end that.
Work is intrinsic to life because it's how you contribute back to the society that enables your continuation of life.
If I assume good faith then your disagreement simply doesn't make sense, but I'm starting to think you're arguing in bad faith. I'm tempted to call you entitled and antisocial, but that would surely end this discussion if I'm incorrect.
When I was flying for a living, I would have gladly continued to do it gratis if all my needs were met, but you can bet your ass I wouldn't be doing it on nights and weekends (except for when I was doing medevac work). Now as an entrepreneur and software person, I work for myself - this is optimal. But I certainly don't think I should have to to justify my right to continue sucking oxygen.
You shouldn't owe society something for simply existing. Full stop. Neither you nor I chose to instantiate into this environment, so us having some sort of moral duty to feed our heart and soul into the economic system is nonsense and we should eliminate that requirement for everyone.
If Bob Smith wants to spend all of his time wanking off, so be it, it's his life to spend. He shouldn't be compelled to work so he can have the continued right to exist. We can do better. We have the ability to.
So I guess I'm correct.
You can go live in the woods and find out how much work it is.
Look man, you don't owe anyone anything for existing. Nor does anyone owe you anything. This idea that we have to grind down the best years of our lives into an apparatus that doesn't give a shit about us so that we can justify our right to keep breathing? That sucks. I want to end that. I think people should be able to do the things they want to do. I think we should make that a priority.
I mostly get to do the things I want to do and largely work for myself on projects I pick. I think everyone should have that opportunity. My wife does too - she's doing exactly what she wants in life. I think that's a good thing, and I think everyone should have the opportunity to live like that.
And if they don't want to do anything at all? I'm fine with that too.
> I don't think it's possible to infer your definition of "work" from what you wrote. If you are doing something, that's work. You are against doing things you don't like. That's a different topic.
301 videos of craftspeople and Handwerkskunst:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLP7j_Ie2Gcc82bpqHPfLf...
I have always tried to abide by DRY in my programming career with the huge exception of writing unit tests. I made the mistake, early in my career when Test-Driven Development was all the rage, of making unit tests reflect the inheritance structure of the actual code. It just made sense. Needless to say, it quickly descended into the most bizarre manifestation of inheritance hell as tests randomly failed with no correlation to the changes done in the core code.
Hence, I resolved to make unit tests the huge exception to DRY. The more straightforward your tests are, the better. Endeavor that each test method up to a test class should read understandably on its own.
This, of course, made tests quite a mechanical chore to write. Which makes it the perfect use case for these large, verbose, and humorless daemons. Bonus that they are also very good at vibing out the set-up needed for a test so I can focus on specifying the test cases I want rather than setting up mock after stub after fake.
The output is also very easy to review and verify. I see no moral quandary in this kind of usage.
actually in all honesty human works are predominantly crap, and a bit passé. If I'm going to visit a site whose whole shtick is provenance I'd rather see some really, objectively good, ai stuff. that would be way more interesting.
Shouldn't human-made exclude injection molding, or CNC metalwork?
Or maybe this is for people who think software is everything?
Sadly many recent electrical engineering grads also have this perspective...
I understand some of the concerns about AI but they are either a problem of our economic system or of people not caring about what they are doing. Economic problems are probably the most important because robotics and AI have the potential to break our current capitalist system.
Thankfully, the website answers that. If it’s too long for you, you can ask an LLM to summarize it.
How do you know that any of the frameworks you are using aren't generated by AI? Personally I think the whole proposition is silly.
We're finally approaching a world where humans could work less and the only thought people can think about is how jobs might go away or some other such bullshit. Capitalist Realism has gotten so bad that I've seen anarchists cheering on copyright law and "so called" leftists wishing for the halcyon days of 30 years ago - just like their parents did in the 90s.
It's wild how conservative of an era we're in right now.