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

71–80 of 298 posts

Re: Codeberg bans vibe coded projects

#71

Post by rmunn »

imtringued wrote: post #37
jaggs wrote: post #5

I'll add my comment from a previous thread: This is a bit strange. Are they saying that Codeberg no longer accepts vibe coded projects at all? If so, it seems kind of short sighted. Within a very short period of time all code will be AI code. What then? And as the models improve, along with better code will come better bug fixing etc etc. So the quality of AI code will absolutely surpass that of human code. What then…

I was kind of thinking of switching to codeberg, but now I am questioning their decisions here. How do you distinguish a vibe coded project from a heavily AI assisted project? The output is AI generated code. The difference between vibe and agentic coding is how selective you are about the end result and not whether it is AI generated or not.

In Codeberg's case, they have chosen not to distinguish between those. Their bright line is "mostly", as in, if your project "mostly" consists of LLM output then it is not allowed. The definition of "mostly" is, of course, vague, and people are going to argue about where the line should be drawn. But there's at least something vaguely approaching an objective measure: they might look through commits and count how many have an LLM listed as a co-author, or they might count the number of lines of code changed by those commits. Who knows, at this point, what they will end up doing. But they're not trying to judge "how well did you curate the output of the LLM"? They have, instead, decided to judge "how many lines/commits/something created by LLMs have ended up in your code?"

Re: Codeberg bans vibe coded projects

#72

Post by voidUpdate »

code-blooded wrote: post #51
lilerjee wrote: post #34

Good job But how to check which projects are vibe coded?

I've actually been thinking it'd be nice to have something like GitHub, but only for hand-written code. If anything, for now I'd like to learn primarily from and perhaps contribute to projects that have human involved at all stages. But I don't think it will be easy to detect AI written code especially with frequent releases of new models.

It also creates a perfect set of training data for future LLMs

Re: Codeberg bans vibe coded projects

#73

Post by themgt »

OleksandrC wrote: post #28
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 tel…

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.

"quite easy to spot" this style in what sense? To a human? To an LLM? To a deterministic code scanner you wrote by hand yourself, per Codeberg policy?

Re: Codeberg bans vibe coded projects

#74

Post by witx »

feverzsj wrote: post #26

GOOD! Now I'm seriously considering moving to coderberg. Their website is also 10 times faster than github already.

I already did move everything there. The responsiveness is great.

I only keep github as a front to showcase projects I want for CV reasons but I host no code there

Re: Codeberg bans vibe coded projects

#75

Post by joegibbs »

account42 wrote: post #44
IceDane wrote: post #4

Well, that's their prerogative, I guess. But the burden of proof will be on them, of course. They can't expect users to prove a negative. There are simple tells that would reveal a lot of projects. Claude Code's moronic defaults of littering commit messages with both a CC author trailer as well as a session link will reveal some, but those are easy to disable. Then there is stuff like prolific comments, em-dashes in…

There is no burden of proof for them as they have no obligation to provide a service to anyone.

That legalistic "I can do whatever I want as long as it's not breaking the law" argumnet lasts until the first time they ban wrongfully ban someone for it and get huge negative PR

Re: Codeberg bans vibe coded projects

#76

Post by lionkor »

marginalia_nu wrote: post #20

Surprising to find a comment thread full of vibe coders being extremely defensive.

Unsurprising given that a large amount of posts on the front page are about or in support of projects that are entirely vibecoded with near zero human input beyond "hm it feels kind of slow, make faster?".

AI is used to launder a lack of care and skill, and people really love not caring and not having to put in any work.

Re: Codeberg bans vibe coded projects

#77

Post by flohofwoe »

peter_retief wrote: post #60

wow this is murky water, I love the abstraction of AI, I feel like the director of an orchestra creating beautiful music in code. 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

> I always resented having to write the same code over and over,

Those problems had been solved in the 1970s and don't need LLMs. One solution is called 'copy-paste', another 'software libraries/components' ;)

Re: Codeberg bans vibe coded projects

#79

Post by brainless »

This is good and I am saying this as someone using coding agents full on.

I am a software engineer and I do use coding agents and I do believe that there can be spaces which do not encourage or allow projects built by generative AI.

Detection may become harder as time passes by but that aside, I think the massive generation abilities of multiple LLM providers will simply make it tough for code hosts. But it is also a choice - there should be spaces where people post projects that they actually write by hand (or with minimal assistance of agents).

I am personally and professionally very much on the "generate code" side of the situation simply because I can deliver things faster. But I know that LLMs are basically large word prediction systems that have been built on existing knowledge. They remix very well but I do not think they create brand new algorithms. For someone like me who is focused solely on building ramen-profitable products or services, LLMs are great but I know that I am not going to spend time/effort in any new research. I am not saying that every hand-written project is going to innovate but we should encourage spaces to maintain the barrier, else we may even become complacent.

Re: Codeberg bans vibe coded projects

#80

Post by frabcus »

Germany copyright law feels like the relevant thing here - Codeberg is a non-profit based in Germany.

Best quick English language overview of status that I could find: https://www.twobirds.com/en/insights/2026/germany/when-can-a...

It looks like Codeberg want only copyrighted material in their service, so it is reliable in the future that e.g. licenses must be followed (e.g. GPL), and copyright doesn't suddenly get declared as being of the model owner, and it isn't a copy of something else.

That is a cautious reasonable position - in early days of LLM coding (3 years ago!) indemnity from model companies was a major issue globally because of the lack of clarity of the law around this. The US specifically has settled on it being (effectively?) public domain. But I don't think that is fully settled, and it certainly isn't settled in international copyright law.

The goal of the vague "mostly" in the Codeberg change is to ensure there is enough human input to the code they host, to be reasonably sure under German copyright law it is copyright of the person sharing it.

Post reply on HN