I don't get why people who want to use LLMs to generate code are grumpy because Codeberg doesn't want to host it.
Surely they can just use their LLMs to generate a replacement for Codeberg, which they can operate on whatever basis they choose?
35
Replies
·
0
Boosts
@neil Okay, smartbadass cb admins, how do they detect AI-generated code?
@neil isn't that just known as GitHub? (Joking)
@neil My bigger worry is they'll scrape the hell out of Codeberg.
@neil The one thing they most want and can never generate is community.
Ha! Good point!
This is like the great thing about self-driving cars: If a car can drive itself, then I don't ever need to be inside that car.
"Bye-bye, car! Go drive yourself somewhere, maybe off a cliff..."
@neil they could call it Codezwerg.
"Zwerg" is the German term for dwarf and I think this would be a match for vibe coding geniuses not understanding their code on technical level...
@neil Why are they even hosting it when someone else can just ask copirate to make them a new one ?
@neil I notice that the domain openclawslopberg dot org is available.
@neil @wendynather because it’s tribalism. The current out tribe is folks who use a particular tool. There will be another out tribe. Then another.
I used to gladly pay codeberg. I’m going to save money by hosting my own forgejo instance.
But the idea of “open except the tribes we don’t like” is repugnant.
@neil I think it comes from the same root of Liberalism that sees blocklists as censorship.
They worry about about freedom of speech without consideration of Freedom of Association in Safety.
Those rights should be considered together.
It's why FOSS projects if they want a community need both a software license and a code of conduct.
It's letting folks know what a projects values are.
For those in the back:
Codebergs vote was about Freedom of Association. You're free to go elsewhere.
@onepict @neil The thing I find AI bros in particular insist on is that _everything_ must be AI. You'd think that all but one of the forge sites that anyone has heard of being all in favour of AI would be enough for them, but no, there must be a monoculture, so that everyone gradually forgets what real software was like.
@neil Either they can happily stay with Github.
@neil More seriously, why can't they just use Sourcehut or Github or some other host I don't know about? What makes Codeberg so special that they have to steer the ship in the direction literally everyone else is going instead of letting an independent entity have control over their own project?
@neil but, but, but, you must accept me in your association despite my hatred of your culture and rules! /s
@neil but then someone would have to pay for the parts needed to host a codeberg alternative. And, for some reason (I'll look it up later), computer parts are like 500% more expensive than they used to be
@neil I get the feeling that source control platforms are viewed a bit like social media these days: Getting thrown off a well-known platform deprives the project of clicks and public interest. I guess being thrown off GitHub is a bit like getting banned from Xitter. Maybe GitLab can be BlueSky and Codeberg can be Mastodon...
@neil my only slight niggle with Codeberg's policy is the slightly subjective (lack of) definition of "mostly generated", which I can't help feeling opens the door to endless debates about how much is too much.
@ahnlak Were I looking for somewhere to host LLM-generated code, I'd take the decision as a sign that I was not welcome on Codeberg, and look for hosting elsewhere.
@neil absolutely, and that's a very clear signal.
LLM usage isn't binary though. The "mostly generated" clause suggests it's fine to have used an LLM to build a small function, for example - at which point, but not putting a number on it, you're into "how much is too much".
To be fair to them, it feels like they're taking a very pragmatic position of effectively saying "no LLM-code, but we're not gonna be fanatical about it".
@neil and SlopHub is right there, too.
@neil They're worried what else they might decide they don't want to host since they now ban things.
I am, of course, joking.
They can just run their own instance of forgejo, without needing to generate anything.
@neil said the same exact thing
@neil Yabbut, unlike vibe-coding that requires some actuall skill and understanding what you are doing...
@neil Forgejo is *so* easy to host, too. I run my own just because I like having somewhere to keep scripts and bits for my servers.
@advancedrubbish Same!
For some stuff, just running git is ideal, but for other stuff, I like forgejo.
What if Forgejo starts using LLMs to craft itself? What if a library Forgejo starts using LLMs to craft itself?
The genetic fallacy is real, even though I agree with Codeberg's stance.
Point 1 is not going to happen - Forgejo is itself hosted in Codeberg, and thus has a vested interest in not using LLMs itself for development. Point 2 is the more worrisome part though - I'd first need to do a dependency table to check which external dependencies does Forgejo still have, and most importantly, which ones can be replaced or forked to the last LLM-free version if push comes to shove.
@csolisr not only is Forgejo hosted on Codeberg, Forgejo has a strict no-LLM policy that goes much further than the new codeberg ToU.
@matthewcroughan @neil It's really not though???
Forgejo is hosted *on* Codeberg, and I believe they already ban AI submissions
Yes, I understand that. But it doesn't take long, if you look at the dependency graph to find something that they depend on that is being contributed to, using Claude with harness for its daily maintenance. For example, go-redis. It has a reasonable amount of contributions now, powered by Claude.
https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/go.mod#L89
@neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk or even just self-host Forgejo, which their LLM surely is able to explain to them
@sijmen Ha! I've just posted exactly the same thing :)
