> people using LLMs are using up disproportionately huge hosting resources
So block huge resource use? What if people use LLMs with disproportionately tiny resource use?
So block huge resource use? What if people use LLMs with disproportionately tiny resource use?
So was it about high resource use, or a principle?
> People who are creating more by hand would still be allowed to have more breathing room.
What about the breathing of people creating by hand with a sprinkle of an LLM?
> but it's just a totally different approach.
Indeed, a better one where you manage directly the issue you claim to care about
In this corresponding blog post, one point made is that LLMs tend to LARP big-project infrastructure on small projects. They use the resources for something like GNOME but they aren't actually GNOME so they don't have any excuse for it.
And let's be real, most of the costs LLMs incur on hosting providers have little to so ln who makes commits. A popular project than bans LLMs from contributing, but is used often by LLMs that are using the project as a library is indistinguishable from one that allows LLM contributors.
So from a practical perspective, it's a head scratcher
In my opinion, not allowing LLM code at least signals that codeberg (and forgejo) itself is unlikely to be majority LLM code, which raises its stock in my book; It signals what kind of people the maintainers are.
Can you elaborate on this? It's new that we're judging what kind of people we're dealing with based on what tools they use.
Open source software that exists for its own sake is exceedingly rare, and understanding the goals of a community before becoming dependent on it is a good idea
I readily concede that there is a huge volume of inexperienced programmers generating crap, though.
It's basically Eternal September for programming.
It's trivial to detect when someone's coding with a chatbot - they tell you, repeatedly.
Nobody who doesn't code with a chatbot worries that it's hard to tell.
If someone has to ask whether their software is mostly AI-written, then it is.
If someone has to ask exactly how racist you have to be before you can be called a nazi, they're probably a nazi.
If someone has to ask how attracted to underage girls they can be before they're a pedophile, they're a pedophile.
If someone has to ask how responsible you have to be for a death before it's a murder, they're probably a murderer.
Because people who aren't these things clearly know that they aren't.
So now your solution entails lowering the quota for everybody because allowing in LLyou must assume eve
Are you sure? It's pretty easy to find telltale signs of LLM usage, like the CLAUDE.md file, the '.cursor' directory, the 'vim'-sized codebase done in a week.
They are not. You can probably draft some query to get candidates based on those criteria. And so very quickly.
> Quotas are automated, evicting projects is highly manual.
The human world is very chaotic. Automation is not a panacea, which is highlighted by Big Tech abysmal support. Sometimes, you want humans to judge, because the optimal result is based on heuristics and not rules written in stone.
Terms of use should be read as a statement of intent, not a series of if-then statements.