51–60 of 298 posts
Good job But how to check which projects are vibe coded?
But I don't think it will be easy to detect AI written code especially with frequent releases of new models.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“You must not share projects that mostly consist of code written by "generative AI"-tools (including services such as Claude , OpenAI Codex ).” Seems pretty clear to me?
If 'mostly' means over 50% you could call this clear. Otherwise I don't think this is clear at all. Otherwise, what is mostly? Mostly at the outset, or at any given time? Must the project move out when it goes from 49% to 51% AI-assisted code?
Yes, old project with 1M LOC of pre-AI code + 100% AI 100k LOC generated coded for the last three months, is that mostly?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“You must not share projects that mostly consist of code written by "generative AI"-tools (including services such as Claude , OpenAI Codex ).” Seems pretty clear to me?
What is mostly? >50%? >75%? What does "written by generative AI" means? Autocomplete? IDE-with-AI-normal-classname-completion? Everything not typed by a human. I personally don't find this clear at all and see many unhappy discussions in the future for Codeberg.
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 (…
> projects that mostly consist of code written by "generative AI"-tools I guess if you auto complete line by line and actually read the code it should be gucci. Edit: Oh, you found it as well now. Disregard my post.
Not from their wording.
This appears to be mostly due to fringe / activist views about copyright, rather than anything to do with quality or principle. If it was the latter I could get on board, as in instituting some standards against slop. But in reality it’s just letting activists hijack with their agenda.
Are they also banning projects whose code was written with AI or just vibe coded projects? Roughly every serious codebase now and forevermore will be at least mostly AI written.
There is a difference between AI written and AI authored, somewhat. Or maybe call it written vs designed.
A lot of the code written today is written by AI, even in serious projects, but the difference is that serious projects don't vibe code. They don't let the AI write whatever it thinks is best, they instead have clear requirements, established architecture, established testing frameworks, tests, CI/CD, linting and human code review.
The difference is intent; if you use AI to write the code you would have written, then nobody can tell, and it's still fully your code and you have reviewed it. That's not vibe coding.
If you let an agent autonomously plan and write code, that's different. The autonomous "Jesus take the wheel" approach results in code you wouldn't have written yourself, and might also have clear AI tells, fundamental issues (like security flaws by design, performance flaws by design, correctness flaws by design, and general maintainability issues).
This matters. I doubt anyone wants to use or read projects done the latter way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 tel…
That doesn't really answer the question of how they're going to detect it at scale. Ban repositories with long comments?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is mostly? >50%? >75%? What does "written by generative AI" means? Autocomplete? IDE-with-AI-normal-classname-completion? Everything not typed by a human. I personally don't find this clear at all and see many unhappy discussions in the future for Codeberg.
I think it's reasonable to assume >50% by default, unless the source clarifies what they mean by "mostly".
This appears to be mostly due to fringe / activist views about copyright, rather than anything to do with quality or principle. If it was the latter I could get on board, as in instituting some standards against slop. But in reality it’s just letting activists hijack with their agenda.
The question is if the massive copyright infringement that all the major labs engaged in means that all work derived from llms is under the copyright of the original owners of the work.
It is quite possible to keep track of what piece of training data changed the value of what weight to the point that the activations for any piece of code can be attributed back to the original copyright holder, including the random initial values which are public domain. I've done this on a toy project for gpt2.
I always resented having to write the same code over and over, now automated by AI
but also support free and open software, as all knowledge should be