I get it, but determining and moreso verifying code is mostly generated is so intractable that this will likely not do anything practically. Well, perhaps it will discourage some disclosure.
The idea is probably to have an easy joker reason to randomly ban any repo which is for some otherwise hard to justify reason not wanted on the site. It’s a common corpo practice to have extra vague and impossible-to-disprove rules like that.
I don’t think anyone expects to catch every vibe coded project that might end up on the site. It’s seems to be about nurturing specific direction for their community, giving admins clear rules on this issue and making their decisions easier in case they do find (or get a report about) a clearly AI “led” project.
Even if vibe coder manages to stick around, they can’t be sure their projects won’t disappear at random due to the new rules. Might be enough to prevent some of them from using the site.
Boosters: There’s no way to enforce this! This rule shouldn’t exist. You can’t be 100% sure a project isn’t slop. Keep the flood gates open.
Reality: We also can’t 100% enforce that people follow the speed limit, but we have speed limit laws. When we catch someone, we can point to the law. The mere existence of the law also acts as a small deterrent.
Same with Codeberg. We can’t 100% enforce the ban, but when we catch someone we’ll be able to point to the rule and kick em out. And just seeing an “AI not welcome” sign on the wall will deter some amount of people.
It’s a bit of a double edged sword. If you’re too vague it’s easy to allow for overreach but if you’re too specific some people will try to skirt the line on technicalities. The final comment in the linked discussion promised to clarify this point in a future blog post so I guess anyone who might be affected by this change should keep an eye for that.
And: false positives? How much fun is it to go to clone your repo and find it locked because something (probably an AI algorithm) decided your project was “vibe coded”?
Don’t ask me. I have nothing to do with Codeberg and I’m not involved in the process itself, I’m just speculating. I would assume that if they’re against hosting AI projects they won’t try to hunt for them using AI screening and stick to a honour system + reporting instead but I know nothing about Codeberg’s inner workings to say for certain.
There will probably be more info on that once the official announcement drops so I guess we’ll see.
I think a lot of the time with these things is not really about filtering every single offending project but stablishing a legal precedent to remove a project the moment it is found to be violating the rules.
Yeah, saying outright that you can’t gives them the ability to remove a problematic project without issue. Otherwise, GiganticProject, that prints “hello world” and is used by Microsoft, which is a million lines of code with 100,000 lines committed every day can be removed without having to deal with Microsoft’s lawyers.
Yeah but I also get it as a thing to put down, just in case you need to mass-ban thousands of clearly-AI-generated projects. You can then just point to this ToS.
Congrats you made a mistake. Any contributor can make commits with ai bots credited into them, and it’s not displayed to the reviewer. Meaning that for just accepting a MR that looked good, you would get banned. Nothing is obvious
The rule is for vibe coded projects. From the article:
If your work fits into these cases, it is unlikely that you are affected at all:
Projects who have an active community that cares about and maintains the software
Projects with a significant pre-LLM history
Maintainers who unknowingly or willingly accepted LLM-generated contributions from other contributors, if your project otherwise does not involve the heavy use of LLMs
They don’t need a rule that can be run automatically because it’s a purely human operation that is trying to take a stand against the more pernicious effects of corporate LLMs.
Do you just disagree with this stance and are just trying to poke whatever hypothetical holes you can in their logic, or do you just want more rigorous definitions/rules?
From experience, content moderation works best when there is some flexibility in the rules, so people can talk it out and come to concessions together.
That’s just Facedeer, an infamous AI booster and concern troll.
A bad faith troll could claim any genuine rule against platform abuse could be turned into a witch hunt. Rules like “don’t upload giant files to overwhelm our servers” or, since I’m reminded of someone else who claims they’re labeled a witch, “don’t harass transgender people”…
I get it, but determining and moreso verifying code is mostly generated is so intractable that this will likely not do anything practically. Well, perhaps it will discourage some disclosure.
The idea is probably to have an easy joker reason to randomly ban any repo which is for some otherwise hard to justify reason not wanted on the site. It’s a common corpo practice to have extra vague and impossible-to-disprove rules like that.
I don’t think anyone expects to catch every vibe coded project that might end up on the site. It’s seems to be about nurturing specific direction for their community, giving admins clear rules on this issue and making their decisions easier in case they do find (or get a report about) a clearly AI “led” project.
Even if vibe coder manages to stick around, they can’t be sure their projects won’t disappear at random due to the new rules. Might be enough to prevent some of them from using the site.
Exactly.
Boosters: There’s no way to enforce this! This rule shouldn’t exist. You can’t be 100% sure a project isn’t slop. Keep the flood gates open.
Reality: We also can’t 100% enforce that people follow the speed limit, but we have speed limit laws. When we catch someone, we can point to the law. The mere existence of the law also acts as a small deterrent.
Same with Codeberg. We can’t 100% enforce the ban, but when we catch someone we’ll be able to point to the rule and kick em out. And just seeing an “AI not welcome” sign on the wall will deter some amount of people.
Speed limits are binary and easily enforceable
The wording used is “mostly”. Which is concerning, because “mostly” is anything but clear and leaves a lot of room for interpretation.
It’s a bit of a double edged sword. If you’re too vague it’s easy to allow for overreach but if you’re too specific some people will try to skirt the line on technicalities. The final comment in the linked discussion promised to clarify this point in a future blog post so I guess anyone who might be affected by this change should keep an eye for that.
Yeah that is a good way to frame it. Makes sense. It does say something about their ethos.
And: false positives? How much fun is it to go to clone your repo and find it locked because something (probably an AI algorithm) decided your project was “vibe coded”?
Don’t ask me. I have nothing to do with Codeberg and I’m not involved in the process itself, I’m just speculating. I would assume that if they’re against hosting AI projects they won’t try to hunt for them using AI screening and stick to a honour system + reporting instead but I know nothing about Codeberg’s inner workings to say for certain.
There will probably be more info on that once the official announcement drops so I guess we’ll see.
The Codeberg team seems crazy solid, or so I feel. I have all my repos there except one which isn’t open source.
That’s good to know. Hopefully they’ll be able to come up with a decent solution that’ll fit their community well.
I think a lot of the time with these things is not really about filtering every single offending project but stablishing a legal precedent to remove a project the moment it is found to be violating the rules.
Yeah, saying outright that you can’t gives them the ability to remove a problematic project without issue. Otherwise, GiganticProject, that prints “hello world” and is used by Microsoft, which is a million lines of code with 100,000 lines committed every day can be removed without having to deal with Microsoft’s lawyers.
Yeah but I also get it as a thing to put down, just in case you need to mass-ban thousands of clearly-AI-generated projects. You can then just point to this ToS.
Define clearly
As in obvious. Like they have model instructions and bots credited as authors on commits.
Congrats you made a mistake. Any contributor can make commits with ai bots credited into them, and it’s not displayed to the reviewer. Meaning that for just accepting a MR that looked good, you would get banned. Nothing is obvious
The rule is for vibe coded projects. From the article:
They don’t need a rule that can be run automatically because it’s a purely human operation that is trying to take a stand against the more pernicious effects of corporate LLMs.
Do you just disagree with this stance and are just trying to poke whatever hypothetical holes you can in their logic, or do you just want more rigorous definitions/rules?
From experience, content moderation works best when there is some flexibility in the rules, so people can talk it out and come to concessions together.
Carighan talked about “mass-banning”. This is what I opposed to
Nobody cares for your got’em logic, it just makes you look childish.
The child is the person who acts before thinking and without caring about the issues it will cause
Why? That’d not he what a company banning the projects would do, so why should it be done beforehand?
It’s exactly about having a hard cut-off, but for a softly defined offense.
It’ll also be a great way to take down projects you don’t like. Just accuse them of witchcraft.
they could already take down any projects they didn’t like. it’s their service after all
Good thing we have pro-AI platforms like GitHub that would never arbitrarily remove projects… Right?? Right???
That’s just Facedeer, an infamous AI booster and concern troll.
A bad faith troll could claim any genuine rule against platform abuse could be turned into a witch hunt. Rules like “don’t upload giant files to overwhelm our servers” or, since I’m reminded of someone else who claims they’re labeled a witch, “don’t harass transgender people”…
Because GitHub arbitrarily removes projects it’s okay if Codeberg does too? “They’re the same as GitHub” is not actually a great point in their favor.
Issue Report: Project turned me into a newt.
deleted by creator