Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs • Hacker News Board

Re: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

#11

Post by dijksterhuis » Thu, Jul 23, 2026, 9:56 AM UTC

youre-wrong3 wrote: post #5

TheChaplain wrote: post #4

I don't really see a problem with this decision (or the one regarding crypto), they were voted on by the active members of Codeberg, simply a democratic outcome.

[flagged]

“closed door” is a bit disingenuous considering any private individual codeberg user can apply to become an active voting member https://join.codeberg.org/

Re: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

#12

Post by not-kinsale-joe » Thu, Jul 23, 2026, 10:02 AM UTC

youre-wrong3 wrote: post #5

TheChaplain wrote: post #4

I don't really see a problem with this decision (or the one regarding crypto), they were voted on by the active members of Codeberg, simply a democratic outcome.

[flagged]

It is still democratic, what would be you preferred way to do it?

Re: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

#13

Post by wongarsu » Thu, Jul 23, 2026, 10:02 AM UTC

I wonder how this turns out longer-term. Obviously more and more software development is moving to LLMs. But depending on how principled codeberg ends up about enforcing this, a project being on codeberg might end up as a strong signal that the project is not ai-slop (either made by hand, or at least by humans who care about the project)

Re: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

#14

Post by nylonstrung » Thu, Jul 23, 2026, 10:09 AM UTC

> To us, it seems ridiculous to see projects with a single developer and virtually no users consuming as much or even more resources than some of the largest community projects on Codeberg, which operate frugal with CI/CD and storage resources. We do not believe it is reasonable for Codeberg to invest our precious donation money into hosting of large ghost projects.

This seems fully orthogonal to whether LLMs are used or not

Re: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

#15

Post by redsocksfan45 » Thu, Jul 23, 2026, 10:09 AM UTC

[dead]

Re: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

#16

Post by ioasuncvinvaer » Thu, Jul 23, 2026, 10:11 AM UTC

nylonstrung wrote: post #14

> To us, it seems ridiculous to see projects with a single developer and virtually no users consuming as much or even more resources than some of the largest community projects on Codeberg, which operate frugal with CI/CD and storage resources. We do not believe it is reasonable for Codeberg to invest our precious donation money into hosting of large ghost projects. This seems fully orthogonal to whether LLMs are use…

I suspect that in reality it is not.

Re: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

#17

Post by Daffrin » Thu, Jul 23, 2026, 10:23 AM UTC

[flagged]

Re: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

#18

Post by endre » Thu, Jul 23, 2026, 10:23 AM UTC

thanks for addressing the source of the problems as `LLMs` and not AI in general.

Re: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

#19

Post by flir » Thu, Jul 23, 2026, 10:24 AM UTC

SiempreViernes wrote: post #10

youre-wrong3 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Not being a US citizen* means I cannot vote in US elections, thus it is a closed door vote by your reckoning and so the US is not democratic. Did I get that right? *This is shorthand for me not being associated with the US in any way, but you are of course free to reply with all the edge cases that makes the point impossible to state briefly.

[flagged]

Re: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

#20

Post by zajio1am » Thu, Jul 23, 2026, 10:31 AM UTC

TheChaplain wrote: post #4

I don't really see a problem with this decision (or the one regarding crypto), they were voted on by the active members of Codeberg, simply a democratic outcome.

[flagged]