Open source is not so open anymore
New rule in Reddit's r/opensource community bans projects that use AI in any form
On October 24, a new moderation policy was introduced in Reddit’s r/opensource community. Under the new rules, open-source projects that use AI in any form are no longer allowed to be promoted in the subreddit.
The moderators have also tightened several other restrictions. Projects maintained by a single person, as well as those with non-English-speaking maintainers, are now excluded from the community.
The Post
As for the actual rules, the new policy introduces several strict requirements. Projects must be at least one year old, actively maintained, and have multiple contributors (subjectively, at least three). They must also have an existing community, must not be AI - focused, and must not fall into the category of common school or capstone projects.
Reddit users submitting their projects must have accounts that are at least one year old, with a significant history of contributions to Reddit.
And don’t even think about messaging the moderators to request an exception to the account requirements after attempting to post - you risk being permanently banned and muted.
Projects that obviously use AI are also unwelcome. The moderator doesn’t specify exactly what level of AI involvement is considered unacceptable.
On top of that, non-English speakers are explicitly told to find another community, because the moderators say they cannot distinguish AI-generated content from AI-translated content.
Finally, the moderator makes it clear that posting unwanted content, including LLM-generated text, can result in a permanent ban rather than a temporary one.
Subjective Zone
This is just my personal opinion, but the moderator (u/Wolvereness) presented the new policy in a rather strange tone - one that I would even describe as arrogant.
To me, it seems that the moderators have mixed concerns about AI usage with other, largely unrelated issues, such as project size and language requirements.
This raises a question: Why should a small open-source project with just one contributor be excluded, even if that person is enthusiastic, dedicated, and actively maintaining it?
The intention
However, I believe the intention behind the policy is important and valid.
I suspect that, thanks to AI, the open-source ecosystem - including this subreddit - is becoming flooded with vibe-coded, AI-generated, one-off microprojects.
The moderators want to distinguish genuine, actively maintained open-source projects from the “Look at this, I asked AI to create a GTA 6 clone“ type of projects.
And I agree with that underlying concern. This is a real issue that needs to be addressed.
The Twitter is full of this AI generated clones:
Don’t get me wrong, my main problem (why I call them garbage) not the quality. My main problem is the lack of original idea. They are just clones. The author wastes tokens to copy something that already exists.
I suppose, the main intention behind the strict policy of Reddit is to address this.
The bad side
But still, if we reject every project that uses AI, what remains? Nowadays, AI is inevitable. And AI usage is not a binary thing (a project either uses AI or doesn’t), but rather a spectrum.
At one end, there are craftsmen who write, review, update, and maintain their code by hand. At the other end, there are fully automated AI agents running in loops, with no human in the loop at all (perhaps not even in the creation of the loop itself).
But there are plenty of valuable projects somewhere in between:
- AI used for security-focused code reviews
- AI used for documentation generation
- AI used to challenge ideas and architectural decisions
- AI used for pull request reviews and test generation
And it’s worth mentioning that even major open-source projects, such as the Linux kernel, have embraced AI-assisted development.
So where exactly should we draw the line?
And let’s not forget: the bad guys are already using AI to analyze code and discover vulnerabilities. Using AI to identify security weaknesses and make our code more secure is no longer just an option - it is becoming a responsibility.
We want code that’s open source, not open to vulnerabilities.
The Voices
We can find opposing voices on Twitter and in the comment section of the original post. They point out a contradiction in the new rule:
Verdict
My initial reaction to the new policy was sadness, frustration, and even outrage. But the more I think about it, the more I understand the reasoning behind it.
And if we zoom out from this small corner of the internet, what remains is a much bigger question - and a lot of confusion.
How should we deal with AI and the things it creates? Who can claim ownership of an LLM’s output? And I’m not talking only about responsibility, but also about the value of the work itself.
I think that even if AI eventually solves software development, it will open up many more questions that we don’t yet have answers to.