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

Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

blog.codeberg.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 168 posts

Re: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

#21

Post by stuartjohnson12 »

flir wrote: post #19
SiempreViernes wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]

He did attack the argument - he argued reductio ad absurdum that classifying "democratic" as "open to everyone" wouldn't be a sensible definition, because the argument would set such a high bar for democracy that no state is democratic.

The irony of this comment is that leaning back and snarkily accusing someone of "playing internet" is precisely the kind of disengagement you're complaining about.

Re: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

#22

Post by croemer »

Since the blog post doesn't actually include the change to the TOS and only links to it at the very end, here it is:

> 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).

https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/commit/96fac426a32d1ba91ff...

Re: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

#23

Post by inigyou »

wongarsu wrote: post #13

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)

I think that's what Codeberg wants. It wants to be the hub of good software, not the dumping ground for random code files that GitHub turned into.

Re: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

#24

Post by flir »

stuartjohnson12 wrote: post #21
flir wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

He did attack the argument - he argued reductio ad absurdum that classifying "democratic" as "open to everyone" wouldn't be a sensible definition, because the argument would set such a high bar for democracy that no state is democratic. The irony of this comment is that leaning back and snarkily accusing someone of "playing internet" is precisely the kind of disengagement you're complaining about.

[flagged]

Re: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

#25

Post by omnimus »

zajio1am wrote: post #20
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's safe to say it's reasonable to majority of codeberg members. It doesn't really matter if it seems unreasonable from the outside.

Re: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

#26

Post by abc123abc123 »

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.

Ridiculous. Any liability is solved through the terms and conditions, where the uploader is held responsible. The uploader solves this, by holding the AI company responsible.

I couldn't care less about if AI was used to develop software, if it does what it is supposed to do, and if it is secure. Bad software can be produced with or without AI, so ultimately it is up to _you_ to vet the software you use if you don't pay anything for it.

Re: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

#27

Post by e2le »

inigyou wrote: post #23
wongarsu wrote: post #13

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)

I think that's what Codeberg wants. It wants to be the hub of good software, not the dumping ground for random code files that GitHub turned into.

A hub of mostly human written software would be enough. It remains to be seen whether that results in measurably better quality code over the long term.

Re: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

#28

Post by inemesitaffia »

omnimus wrote: post #25
zajio1am wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

It's safe to say it's reasonable to majority of codeberg members. It doesn't really matter if it seems unreasonable from the outside.

You wouldn't say that about the above example.

Especially given several Global South countries see it as an example of foreign interference.

Re: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

#30

Post by pona-a »

zajio1am wrote: post #20
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]

Not platforming your slop is the same as killing minorities? Okay...

Codeberg is not a state. This is not life and death. If you have any disagreements, feel free to join another community. The network effect hadn't kicked in yet, you're free to compete in the marketplace of ideas.

Post reply on HN