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?
32
Replies
·
0
Boosts
@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.
