More and more of the components showing up in Customization were clearly written mostly by a language model. That's not a problem by itself, but people installing them deserve to know, because the review story is different.
I'd like us to agree on a simple, voluntary ai-assisted tag for components whose code was mostly generated, and a line in the topic template asking authors to say so.
Thoughts?
I'm in favour, as long as it's framed as information rather than a warning. Some of the best components I've installed this year started as generated code that the author then tested properly.
people installing them deserve to know, because the review story is different
I'd push back on this. Hand-written code has shipped plenty of security holes too. What matters is whether somebody competent reviewed it, not which tool typed it.
Fair, but a label doesn't stop anybody installing anything. It just gives one more signal next to the install count and the last-updated date.
Could the label be about maintenance instead? "Maintained", "Looking for maintainer", "Archived" would tell me more than how the first draft was written.
Moderator note: let's keep this one about the label proposal. I've split the maintenance-status idea into its own topic so it gets a fair hearing.
Practical suggestion — make it a tag rather than a category, so nobody has to move their topic and it's searchable with tags:ai-assisted.
We've read all of this. We'll add an optional field to the Customization topic template next week, and we'll revisit once there are a few months of data.
Thank you. Optional and descriptive is the right call.
