cross-posted from: https://piefed.world/c/tech/p/1279028/codeberg-bans-vibe-coded-projects
Relevant .
You must log in or register to comment.
3 days- You must not share projects that mostly consist of code written by “generative AI”-tools (including services such as Claude, OpenAI Codex). Such projects having an unclear copyright status (see requirements § 2 (1) 1 and § 2 (1) 3) and furthermore have little safeguards to ensure that they do not include harmful code (c.f. § 2 (1) 5).
That feels like a reasonable middle ground. Allow some things with some AI written code, but don’t allow stuff that is a majority of AI code.
- Kaligalis@lemmy.worldEnglish2 days
Let’s be real here: Most future projects will be mostly written by AI.
Sure, the good ones will have proper human QA. But Claude Code is so much faster at writing and rewriting surprisingly good code, that ignoring it is just like ignoring IDEs was a decade ago.
You can still write code without AI, syntax highlighting, code-suggestions, documentation tooltips, inspections, and fully integrated version control. But all these tools legitimately make software development easier.Let’s be real here, the concerns about what the copyright is of code that’s produced by AI is still sort of in the air, especially for a site that wants to host content from across the globe. Codeberg picking its battles and not wanting to deal with that for now seems reasonable.
- 1 day
Let’s be real here, the ethical concerns over LLM use far outweigh any copyright concerns and are the real reason people should refrain from using them in any way, shape, or form.
- theherk@lemmy.worldEnglish3 days
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.
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.
- CeeBee_Eh@lemmy.worldEnglish3 days
giving admins clear rules on this issue and making their decisions
The wording used is “mostly”. Which is concerning, because “mostly” is anything but clear and leaves a lot of room for interpretation.
- Mika@piefed.caEnglish3 days
Very cringe thing to do when the whole industry jumps on LLM-automation wagon. This way you filter out people who actually do stuff professionally.
Good to know though. Would avoid.
- 1 day
“Please follow the awful decisions of the industry at large instead of having ethics. They’re very inconvenient for me.”
- Mika@piefed.caEnglish1 day
There is nothing unethical in the goal to simplify development. The only unethical thing here is how giant American closed source AI corpos try to trample the competition to become monopoly in providing essential tools.
AIs need to be open source and hardware to run AIs needs to be obtainable.
- GoatSynagogue@lemmy.worldEnglish3 days
A repo host that can remove your repo at any moment because someone can accuse your code of being “vibe coded” is not a repo host I’d trust. It shouldn’t matter how good, bad, or A.I. written your code is. It’s a hosting platform.
- MrLLM@ani.socialEnglish3 days
I mean, I agree with you, but there’s still room for abuse.
Have you seen OpenClaw’s issues page?
Vibe coders and AI agents are floating it with garbage, if they were to do that to Codeberg, it’ll probably run out of resources pretty quickly
- Kaligalis@lemmy.worldEnglish2 days
Just use that cat girl captcha thing, every other FOSS site uses, and the problem is solved.
- kayazere@feddit.nlEnglish3 days
The main argument is due to copyright issues of LLM generated code. Github will happily remove repos which violated copyright laws or IP laws. It makes sense that Codeberg doesn’t want to host code which may be violating copyright law.
- Kaligalis@lemmy.worldEnglish2 days
Just one problem with that: Every piece of work - code or otherwise, made by a human or not - may violate copyright law. There really is no way to know without actually checking against all other works (which you can’t because you don’t have access to all of them).
What GitHub does is what a sane person would do: React to claims. They just assume that what they get uploaded isn’t violating copyright until someone claims otherwise. And as it is literally impossible to actually know, that is the only sane way to approach this problem apart from just not hosting other people’s stuff at all.
No idea, it’s mainly left wing progressive slop
I wonder if they have a statement on palestine
