Discussion
The human.json Protocol
philippz: Reminds me a bit of FOAF https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOAF
orsorna: Too bad they didn't choose a more human interchange format...
ai-psychopath: 50 commits in 24 hoursit's hilarious that the human.json protocol to fight AI slop is itself AI slop
deafpolygon: Virtue signaling at best; noise at worst… It’s trivial for an AI to add, and will be done so by anyone hoping to get a piece of that attention economy…
castral: I think I saw Gaius Baltar implement this on Battlestar Galactica. It went well. /s Honestly seems more like a protocol for encoding a popularity contest, which is already what social media signalling does. How do you defend against self-reinforcing botnets and bad actors "cancelling" other people? I can dilute your human signal by creating massive amounts of LLM-generated noise.
alsetmusic: If nothing else, this at least inspired me to put a disclaimer on my own site declaring my AI policy. It's not so fancy and I think it's a good deal more credible than any formal protocol.
semyonsh: Something tells me GPG would be great for this concept, but it's probably not as accessible as to get people to paste a JSON somewhere.
outofpaper: To the average person ab public key is about as comprehensible as JSON.
evolve2k: I’m a bit concerned that the content of humans.json will itself get mopped up by AI crawlers.
yladiz: If you do a lot of small commits, it's entirely reasonable to make 50 commits in 24 hours. Looking at a few random commits they seem human generated (with potentially some copied CSS).Maybe, before making an accusation that it is AI generated you should have some proof. Do you have any?
martin-t: Humans don't generate code, we write code.I am strongly opposed to anthropomorphising autocomplete (phrases like "I asked <my favorite LLM>", "<my LLM> suggested", ...) or even referring to autocomplete+tooling as "AI" because it devalues actual human intelligence. But I've seen the opposite recently - devaluing human work by using language normally used for machines.Maybe you didn't mean anything by it but how people talk about things shapes how they think about it (which arguably is one area where humans and LLMs are similar).
halls-940: Is there a mechanism here that favors a human over a bot? It seems about the same as adding a field to robots.txt
