Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Codeberg bans vibe coded projects

codeberg.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 298 posts

Re: Codeberg bans vibe coded projects

#21

Post by raesene9 »

guessmyname wrote: post #7
saidnooneever wrote: post #2

i wonder how they will detect it though. is there some good tool to tell them if code files someone submit were outputs or altered by LLMs?

Most people leave the “Co-authored-by: ” lines in their Git commits [1]. I’m not sure why exactly, but I suppose it's either laziness or a lack of care. Regardless, if I were Codeberg, that would be the first thing I’d detect, and then I might use a Random Forest Classifier to identify the rest. [1] https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests/how-tos/commit-chan...

As other have mentioned, and I'm the same. Leaving "Co-Authored by:" feels like open disclosure of how the project was created.

That way if a consumer does not want to use LLM generated/assisted software, it's easy for them to do that without having to search around in the codebase for "AI Tells".

Removing those would feel like I was mis-representing my coding abilities (LLMs are better at most coding than I am) :)

Re: Codeberg bans vibe coded projects

#25

Post by mattashii »

applfanboysbgon wrote: post #12
guessmyname wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people leave the “Co-authored-by: ” lines in their Git commits [1]. I’m not sure why exactly, but I suppose it's either laziness or a lack of care. Regardless, if I were Codeberg, that would be the first thing I’d detect, and then I might use a Random Forest Classifier to identify the rest. [1] https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests/how-tos/commit-chan...

AGENTS.MD and CLAUDE.MD also provide easy detection avenues. Trivial measures will probably catch 70-80% or more. You don't need a 100% enforcement rate for a rule to exist, indeed there are basically no rules anywhere in the world that achieve that.

Whilst they may provide a strong signal, I wouldn't call it a guarantee. If I wanted to avoid vibe-coded contributions I might add such files, but with instructions for the agents that they're not allowed to read or touch any of the files in the repository.

Re: Codeberg bans vibe coded projects

#27

Post by RicoElectrico »

My hypothesis is that this particular kind of AI pushback originates from people who really are terminally online and can't separate their job (programming) from free time (also programming). Programmers are unusual in that regard, compared to most other professions.

Re: Codeberg bans vibe coded projects

#28

Post by OleksandrC »

saidnooneever wrote: post #2

i wonder how they will detect it though. is there some good tool to tell them if code files someone submit were outputs or altered by LLMs?

Claude-written code is quite easy to spot - because it has this particular style of overly verbose "walls of text" comments, that 1. repeat verbatim what the code just below does, 2. include "list of things" that quickly go stale, 3. talk about "how things used to be before we changed it here" (useless to anyone reading the code now), 4. "talk to reviewer" in comments. And many other comment sins.

And even if you tell it to make it leaner, it'll maybe trim a little, but it'll still be a wall of text. Claude really likes to write its opuses and fables in comments.

And commit messages suffer from the same verbose prose.

And all of that happens even if you explicitly instruct in CLAUDE.md to keep things lean/concise. It's a disease.

Re: Codeberg bans vibe coded projects

#29

Post by KingOfCoders »

What is a vibe coded project? Where does it start? Cursor autocomplete? One shot Github project copies?

[Edit] The pull link is https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/pulls/1253/files and says

"7. 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)."

Whatever "mostly" means. If you autocomplete a lot, and the code written is "mostly" written by AI by autocomplete - it seems you fall under this.

I wonder what the ratio needs to be. And I wonder if auto-refactoring in Intellij is also included, because Intellij created the code and then also has "unclear copyright status" if we follow the logic.

Together this opens up more questions to me than it answers.

Re: Codeberg bans vibe coded projects

#30

Post by exploderate »

They are a non-profit with a mission to support free software:

https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/src/branch/main/en/bylaws....

However, they do this because of copyright status and harmful code:

"7. 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). "

Post reply on HN