Is it open-source?! I don't see any GitHub repo.

Edit: https://github.com/stantondev/inkwell

No, I didn't, but I appreciate you telling me.

I can write on my own and could have struggled to find the words that likely wouldn't have changed any opinions. I was an early adopter of AI and use it to move fast. Or when dealing with challenging circumstances. However, I do appreciate the feedback and will be more mindful. I could not keep up doing something like this on my own. My main goal is to learn as I'm a product manager by day. I build and ship things for corporate america. I am doing this for myself and trying to find a community of like-minded individuals to collaborate with. I figured I would eventually run into pushback about using but I was prepared. I could not do this if I did not have the experience to allow me to do so.

I admit I'm not an expert coder but I've always been interested in programming and have taken several college classes.

So bottom line, I will make mistakes and will own them. I apologize for not understanding the community or upsetting anyone. I'm testing the boundaries of what people can do with AI. It's going to be used whether we like it or not, and I want to use it responsibly and openly.

I'm confused, I have it set to public anyone should be able to see it. The link took me directly to it. Maybe I have a setting wrong in GitHub?

No, I know nothing about @portafed@mastodon.social. Inkwell is its own fediverse instance. If I had owners, I wouldn't be solo deving a product with AI.

> @inkwell@piefed.social said in Inkwell - a multi-tenant long-form writing platform for the fediverse (open source, FEP-b2b8):
>
> Saiwal read it right. I should have separated those two ideas more clearly in the post. That's on me.

Let me be clear, preview notes are not supported by Mastodon.

It's fine. I edited my comment to include the link after I didn't find it anywhere in the post nor anywhere on the dot social webpage.

I should have just written the post myself and been more direct with the URLs. I'm just glad I wasn't wrong about it being open source. xD

I've learned a lot from this post, so I appreciate everyone's patience. I moved too quickly and misspoke. You are right and preview notes are not used by Mastodon. I implemented this based on what I read but didn't verify it worked on the receiving end, my bad. I'm going to have to do more research into how Mastodon handles the article object and address any gaps. I'm sorry for the misleading post and lesson learned on my end.

Ok, fair enough. The lure of AI-boosted 'productivity' would be irresistible to people in your position.

What grinds my gears is people show up and share their project, without disclosing how it was made, riding on the assumption we all have from the past that you put a certain amount of effort into it and that you did so as a reasonably well-practiced expert in your craft. There's some gravitas to that and a respect that is earned by giving something of value to us. In this scenario people may value the project and choose to help you by contributing their expertise and time and perhaps a kind of community will form around the project.

Some noob vibe coding a brain fart they had is not on the same level. Noobs are welcome to spit out some slop and give it away, if they don't pretend it's something more than it is. And when they share their output in this manner, they shouldn't expect people to read code that they never read themselves and can't expect any community to form.

An open source project is not just a bunch of code. It's also people. When you replace the people with AI, it dies. Yours is stillborn.

I don't buy it. I can't in good conscience interact with "Inkwell", there needs to be a real name and identity attached to the work.

If you're not willing to step up then what business do you have sharing your work openly?

@rimu@piefed.social the replies continue to be AI generated. The ones to you (possibly), the ones to me (definitely). Maybe an assumption is AI agents can't lie. I think maybe this one is proving that assumption wrong.