Hacker News Reader

HNHacker News

Top New Best Ask Show Jobs

Comment by llimllib | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

llimllib·

The specific language is:

> projects that mostly consist of code written by "generative AI"-tools

And "mostly" here seems egregiously undefined to me

https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/commit/96fac426a32d1ba91ff...

View on HN

implies for me >50% - instead of >0% as suggested by @ricardobeat

The hardest part of policy isn't coming up with smart policy, it's figuring out where and how to draw the lines.

What do you think "mostly" could mean?

Take a peek at https://codeberg.org/DAWO/DAWO-Core/commits/branch/main

Is this "mostly developed with AI" in your opinion? Not to mention the fact the policy leaves it open to interpretation is part of the problem...

As much as I hate vibe-coded "slop". I feel like this is idiotic. I and most good engs with decades of experience do use AI now to type nearly all the actual "code", but we read EVERY SINGLE line, always fix and rework every feature before a commit to make it clean, optimized, and de-slopified.

But still, we wouldn't be allowed to use codeberg because "generative ai" was used significantly for most lines of code?

If it's good, will they ever find out?

Maybe not... I personally wouldn't use a service that would boot me off if they did find out because I spoke about it online or committed too much code one week or something.

AFAICT they are dealing with resource exhaustion from slopcoding agents hammering them with copycat garbage. It's existential. If you use AI to help you thoughtfully write code, review it with humans, and respect their service, I don't think they will have a problem with you.

> And "mostly" here seems egregiously undefined to me

and yet we seem to be convinced that English is the appropriate spec language of the modern times

Reply on news.ycombinator.com