Why can't you use an LLM to find vulnerabilities and then hand-code the fix? You don't even have to clean-room implement it; let the LLM write the code, and then reimplement, doing what you can to de-LLM-ify it.
Go back and read the threads. On this forum, or on mastodon, or on the vote. It was pretty vociferously ... shall we say ... "principled"
It was never stated to be about "low quality" but about use in "large part" or "majority", and when pressed people refused to define what that meant, and in fact got angry and defensive and said things like "you'll know if you've crossed the line" and "stop trying to force consent" and similar pearls of wisdom.
The post-facto rationalization did in fact leave them room to judge "quality" on a purely subjective basis. I didn't stick around to find out how that would shake out.
I might be wrong but I doubt that people on Codeberg are against use of LLMs that make the projects better. Like finding security leaks. What these rules are aimed at are hosting of endless vibe coded projects that are just copy of each other.
Instead a vaguely worded policy was put in around the tools used to write code so that vibe-based judgement could sit and decide without the potential judged having recourse to any appeal. And requests for specificity were not just turned down but mocked. Because the intent was to leave it open so that a process of bullying could be put in place.
Basically, anti-democratic practices masquerading as community/democracy. I used to see this a lot back when I was involved more heavily in left wing activist groups and it was the sign of a declining and degraded community. Sad to see it here.
As for "I assume you are implying that LLM generated projects don't mean bad quality. That's true." I'm specifically saying LLM assisted/generated doesn't mean one way or the other. They're tools.
big hugs.
There's no team of lawyers verifying the provenance of all code/projects submitted to codeberg. THe policy is just something they can point to as a general guidelines of what kind of shit they want to support.
Everyone knows exactly what kind of projects they're talking about. The people trying to nitpick definitions are those annoying ass people at the board game night that spend half the time combing through the rule book trying to figure out why whatever they didn't like was against the rules.
Ordinarily that's a bad way to run a rule. But not this time!
That's fine for new projects. Their sandbox and they can decide who plays in it. But the people who were using codeberg for months or even years and relying on it, and had to move... deserved better treatment.
Fomr my eyes the questions about what defines "majority" were well-intention-ed queries with the motive of trying to ferret out what the criterion for was in the eyes of the people who proposed the vote. That they refused to answer, and cast aspersions on the people who asked... is both a damning judgement on their personal character but also their community management.
What we have is a community defining an in-group and an out-group. And just like middle school, "you'll just know" if you're in one or the other.,
Good grief. What a bizarre cultish echo chamber. The tools make you dirty. Don't touch the tools.
And now you're literally saying that a "no vibecoded projects" rule is a slippery slope to actual fascism. Good grief! What nonsense!