adding a "created_by" tag is not opt in. it's opt out. you are de facto choosing how OSM volunteers must approach their work, without their consent.

Can I suggest also adding a tag for ML originated features that's not specific to your demo/app? Maybe this can help put extra eyes on them and/or help prevent them from polluting the DB wholesale. Maybe client apps could have a toggle to allow/reject them.

If the upstream project thinks there may be a potential problem with this, that is a problem in itself. Try not to get defensive about it, just pull the project and have another go at the problem in collaboration with upstream. Perhaps parts of the project and be useful for upstream? Perhaps another workflow could make the project better?

We all strive for better open data. I upstream feel there is a risk that automated uploads could be easier with this project, creating more boring work for them which is already enough of a problem, that animosity will be a net negative for everyone in this space. Technical solutions such as new tags or opt out schemes will not solve the problem.

Mozilla engineers think they are way better than the rest of us though. Don’t need to follow the same rules.

The real "problem" here is that someone is once again upset about AI for no good reason. A good cue to consider making an AI-based competitor to OpenStreetMap.

The OSM community has had extremely clear rules around automated edits for most of its existence. Every experienced mapper has seen first-hand the sorts of problems they can cause. The fact that it's using AI in this instance does not give any sort of exception to these rules. To emphasize, there are already AI-assisted tools that are allowed,[0] this isn't a blanket application of "no AI ever," it's about doing so properly with the right community vetting.

[0] Most notably: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Rapid

Edit to add: To be clear, they have since taken steps to try to resolve the concerns in question, the discussion is ongoing. I suspect at the end of this we will get a useful tool, it's just off to a rocky start.

The "good reason" is that OSM is supposed to contain real data, not wobbly AI guesswork data.

Robust computer vision is not guesswork, and probably better than what the average contributor can do. The "wobbly" concerns were already addressed.

That's not an assertion I'm going to take seriously without evidence.

Preliminary evidence seems very good. The gatekeepers are already doing damage control.

Link the evidence, then. Numbers, not vibes.