Ah, the Codeberg Drama
gagliardoni.net
gagliardoni.net
Why do the very vocal "AI people" online have this thing where they are simultaneously:
- proclaiming their thing to be inevitable and massive and a bulldozer of productivity;
- responding to any negative reaction like they are almost like a persecuted group
It seems paradoxical to me. If your LLM-written project is so amazing, who cares about the critics?
Let them have their corner of the internet. There are plenty of other sites that will host your project.
Perhaps if you are a heavy codeberg user it is annoying to move onto Forgejo. I get that. But ultimately Codeberg has the right to decide these things
Starting your comment by saying "in good faith" doesn't make it in good faith.
Making straw-men is not honest debate.
And what you're not mentioning here is that there are people who actually felt they had their own corner of the Internet, didn't/don't consider themselves "AI people", just happened to use a tool, and now retroactively having a judgement applied to them.
That's fine if you think it's okay to do that. I think you're being dishonest in your framing of the discussion though, by creating a "two sides" scenario to justify in-group / out-group behaviours.
> I think you're being dishonest in your framing
Asking without malice: why are you telling me this?
This is an open internet forum. You can suspect my sincerity but also, I can suspect yours.
Neither of us can ever prove we mean what we say. We just have to muddle on and ignore anything we think is trolling
"AI enthusiast" is an equally crude word for people who happened to use a tool in authoring their project.
That answer your question?
Or maybe you don't actually have stakes in this situation and don't understand why people who put their passion into their projects might be frustrated? Or does your bucket of "AI people" not include people who put heart and soul into their work?
You asked the question in your opening comment and framed it as "fair question", so I'm not sure why you're surprised by the answer.
Codeberg wants to protect their hosting from the large volume of AI projects.
What do you think the right solution is here?
And maybe a statement that: "Pre-existing vibe coded projects providing little value to the community may be subject to review."
Instead we got a Lord Of the Flies moment.
... Personally I was planning up to that point on donating once I got paying work again.
Another theory: https://lobste.rs/s/omq8rt/vibecoding_gets_emacs_patch_rejec... (posted very much not because of the chatbot psychosis aspect, which doesn't seem relevant in this case, more the part about possible minor personality changes from long-term communing with LLMs)
To me, this is a good decision. I already got burned by an Asdf 'clone' that was in rust and allegedly lightweight. Never again I will install on my computer a rust-written tool written in a month that merge 5 pr per day. I know what to look for now, but IMHO having a platform where those kind of projects are forbidden is great. If an AI generated tool is so great and wonderful I cannot miss it, I will get it from word of mouth.
The signal is now that Codeberg is an activist platform. That is fine, but that makes it unfit for many projects that want a largely neutral hoster.
Just as they are free to do this, I am free to move my repositories elsewhere and stop donating.
(And I'm nothing near a vibe oder, but the way the terms are now formulated, even doing LLM-assisted programming could be a violation.)
It doesn't seem like you're amicably moving your projects away. It seems like you're going around tech forums arguing with the democratic decision and fear-mongering about how legitimate projects will be removed next.
I am moving my projects away because I will be in violation of the new rule:
You must not share projects that mostly consist of code written by "generative AI"-tools
While my projects are currently not 'mostly code generated by "generative AI"-tools', most new code for some of my projects is, so at some point in the not-too-far future I will cross the threshold where this becomes true.
around tech forums arguing with the democratic decision
Don't be so dramatic. What tech forums am I going around aside from a comment here? Also, I acknowledged that this is a democratic decision. That does not mean that I have to agree with it and if I don't agree with it, I can move my repositories somewhere else. I am just flagging that this can be a problem for existing open source projects.
fear-mongering about how legitimate projects will be removed next.
My projects are legitimate and have been used for years by many people and some will be in violation of this rule once enough LLM-assisted code has been added.
If we're going to argue that a platform is free to make decisions, aren't its [ex-]users also free to make decisions, too?
I think it would have been more palatable to people if the terms said something like "Additionally, for repositories after July 24, the following additional requirements apply:".
Fear-mongering?
What were legitimate projects are getting removed already. This is not fear-mongering, it's just not being incredibly shortsighted.
CoC drama is already a much too known vector of problems, this adds fuel to possible fires.
For seconds, this proves that Codeberg may in the future ban any project. The platform is, flat out, without a doubt, not reliable long term, and I reckon about anyone should be pretty upset at that.
Third, this reeks of children playing politics. If you are going to put measures as strong as these on the table, you better have very defined lines on which to act upon, and you better have a good rationale for them. This doesn't seem to be the case in one account or the other, which paints the administration as not only incompetent, but delusional on their competency. This may not warrant anger, but it sure does warrant frustration and disappointment.
It is perfectly fine to take politics seriously. I reckon more people should do it. There is a huge problem though in which people mix that up with taking political action, without actually putting the work on what to do, why, how and what are the consequences. That is the actually hard part, and this looks more like "we are anti-bad stuff" than that.
Thats the cost of hosting your code on a platform you dont control. Its nothing new either ideologically or practically, large forges have been banning repos for years.
>Third, this reeks of children playing politics.
This is the age old liberal way of whining about political action they dont like, they rarely critique the actual decision but target "how" it was done. You can view it as "childish" if you want, but for those of us that see these tools as inherently bad an outright ban is the correct and decisive move. Folks seem to think that if a political action isnt technocratic enough it is childish, but really its the type of action we need more of. There isnt nuance to these tools in many folks' minds, they are a scourge and should be banned as swiftly as possible.
as is their right, they're providing this service to you free of charge, if they don't like how you're using their service they are free to remove it.
If you are on Arch, you can do this simple fix (instructions are similar for other distros):
sudo pacman -S forgejo
sudo systemctl enable --now forgejoIt seems a lot of people on here don't understand that.
At least in Switzerland, you can not vote (well, you can but it does not have any effect) on things that are not mentioned within the agenda published and sent to members with the invitation. So IMHO these votes will not have any effect itself, just serve as an "indication".
IANAL.
If AI is inevitable then it's guaranteed infinity money.
Show the lowly morlocks how it's done.
> distrust in other areas, such as quantum computing
you haven't even begun getting to the point and already lost me
> fear of the unknown
Unknown what, lol?
"we don't like X, Y Z for A, B, C reasons"
"Luddites, fear of quantum computing.. oh no I'm confused, they're so afraid of the future."
That is like someone mumbling at their shoes that someone is afraid of something. No notes.
At any rate: Are you afraid of a control group? Are you afraid of a surface not covered in slop, so it may keep slop knowable? Are you afraid to sink alone?
Codeberg bans vibe coded projects
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49003386
Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49015588
Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49015635
I regret migrating to Codeberg
It's basically not allowing junkfood on their platform. Now that code is easier than ever to barf out, so will the amount of junk.
As for tossing out any and all crypto projects... how is anyone still willing to associate themselves with that pile of garbage?
They could have established a direct way to protect hardware resource with an option to ban users that cause unreasonable load. Maybe not great but understandable considering they are an e.V.
No, it's actually very good.
Since we're talking about my opinions here, which should be construed as laws of my hosting platform, i always hated ruby so lets ban ruby.
In fact codeberg shall only accept Perl programs going forward that are written using emacs
Isn’t that almost everything these days? If you’re using vscode or codex or Claude CLI you’re in that category.
Carry on, nothing to see here.