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

251–260 of 298 posts

Re: Codeberg bans vibe coded projects

#251

Post by lproven »

KingOfCoders wrote: post #52
jorisw wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

"Mostly at any given time?" Yes, old project with 1M LOC of pre-AI code + 100% AI 100k LOC generated coded for the last three months, is that mostly?

No.

"Most" is clear and unambiguous.

It means more X than Y. The value of X is larger than the value of Y.

X = bot slop ; Y = human written code

In your question, 90% human written, 10% bot generated; no, it is not "most".

Re: Codeberg bans vibe coded projects

#252

Post by FabCH »

archagon wrote: post #245
FabCH wrote: post #240

The problem with this logic is that Codeberg itself is built on top of other FOSS. What will happen when Git accepts its first vibe-coded patch. Linus is famously ok with AI assisted coding, so eventually Linux can or will also cross the threshold. Will Codeberg stay principled and stop using Git and Linux?

"Yet you participate in society. Curious!"

Do they? A luddite response is not necessarily participating in society. It could be argued Codeberg group made a choice to opt out of participating.

Re: Codeberg bans vibe coded projects

#253

Post by FinnKuhn »

aveao wrote: post #244
FinnKuhn wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Their concern of "what if the license goes to model providers" is bonkers, and is completely out of line with their decision to ban projects that are mostly written by LLMs. Under German copyright law, this concern is unfounded. Copyright protection requires a "personal intellectual creation" (persönliche geistige Schöpfung) — a threshold that the provider of an AI model cannot meet, since they merely supply the to…

Perhaps you mean that the copyrighted content can only be originally created by a natural person, but companies do very much have Urheberrecht for content they get copyright transferred for (often through employment contracts and implicitly through work relationships). Otherwise you're right though.

No, in Germany you can not transfer the copyright itself, only a license. That license can however transfer exclusive usage rights, so in practice it ends up mostly similar, with some niche differences only. For example the creator has a right to attribution.

Re: Codeberg bans vibe coded projects

#254

Post by onel »

I think it's their right to build the community they want. If the rules they find good for them. We're not forced to use them.

I think we're going to start seeing this more often, as more people and orgs are moving towards self-hosting or not relying on one central community hub, be it for code hosting, chat, etc

Re: Codeberg bans vibe coded projects

#255

Post by joepie91_ »

KingOfCoders wrote: post #233
lelanthran wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So much this! Here's what I cannot understand - the spirit behind this update is clear: to carve out a space for human-written projects. Now we have a bunch of people nit-picking what "human-written" means, with a bunch of snide "Hah! Gotcha!" thrown in for good measure... "What about if it autocompletes - that's not written by a human!!! Lusers!!!" "Hey, I used LLMs to rubberduck this; that's not fully written by a…

Wait until people get kicked off because their code is "mostly" AI and we have discussions on HN how unfair it is to kick people off for some fuzzy and unclear definition of genAI generated code. If they create a place for human written code, it would be much easier to say No AI generated code. Examples include but are not limited to: * No autocomplete * No prompt generated code * No automatic agent generated code *…

The people who would argue about how unfair it is that they got kicked out of somewhere because they flew too close to the sun, are also the same people who will rules-lawyer your "easy" list of rules and invent loopholes if they need to, just to be able to complain and stir up a crowd.

Codeberg is run by people. People who can make contextual judgments. They're even pretty explicit about it in their blogpost; that it's not going to be a search-and-destroy process, and that they're generally communicative.

In that situation, anyone who is complaining that the rules are "too vague" is probably just trying to figure out exactly how close they can get to violating the rules without getting kicked, and that's precisely the kind of people who would not be welcome on a community service like Codeberg. If you actually follow the spirit and intention of the rule, it would never even get to a point of ambiguity.

Re: Codeberg bans vibe coded projects

#256

Post by badsectoracula »

customguy wrote: post #229
akmarinov wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean Codeberg will pretty soon start having to ask. How do they determine that and who'll be in charge to find violations there?

Before Codeberg has to ask that, the person who would upload has to ask it themselves. People know what they did, or didn't. "If you have shit on your shoe, please don't walk across our carpet". "But how do they know? maybe we should test if they can tell", and all that stuff... no. Most people would simply take a good look, and if they're worried about something that could be be mud or not, brush it off just in case…

> Before Codeberg has to ask that, the person who would upload has to ask it themselves. People know what they did, or didn't.

This is going in circles. For someone to "ask it themselves", first they need to know what to ask. But the term is vague: what does "mostly" mean? You can't ask yourself if your code is "mostly consist of code written by" generative AI if you don't know what whoever is going to judge the rules means by it.

Is it to be taken literally? I.e. a 2000-line project where 1000-lines are written by AI is fine but if there are 1001-lines your project is out (in which case, if the human-written lines get refactored to become shorter and more efficient, does that suddenly mean the project is out?).

Re: Codeberg bans vibe coded projects

#257

Post by throw310822 »

jmye wrote: post #183
throw310822 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's either plainly stupid virtue signalling aimed at the current strawman (AI bad!) or- if the legal justification stands- it's another symptom of European death by over-regulation, which should be judged as tragic.

> Because it's either plainly stupid virtue signalling aimed at the current strawman This seems reductive. Do you think that code-hosting sites should be unable to determine their own standards and the projects they host, solely because they make you feel bad (that "you" presumably neither wrote nor understand a single line of code in your project)? Do you think a lack of clarity on copyright rules is actually "tragi…

> Do you think that code-hosting sites should be unable to determine their own standards

Not at all! They can do what they want, exactly as I'm free to judge what they do.

And no, I'm not affected- I had never even heard of Codeberg before.

Re: Codeberg bans vibe coded projects

#258

Post by customguy »

badsectoracula wrote: post #256
customguy wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before Codeberg has to ask that, the person who would upload has to ask it themselves. People know what they did, or didn't. "If you have shit on your shoe, please don't walk across our carpet". "But how do they know? maybe we should test if they can tell", and all that stuff... no. Most people would simply take a good look, and if they're worried about something that could be be mud or not, brush it off just in case…

> Before Codeberg has to ask that, the person who would upload has to ask it themselves. People know what they did, or didn't. This is going in circles. For someone to "ask it themselves", first they need to know what to ask. But the term is vague: what does "mostly" mean? You can't ask yourself if your code is "mostly consist of code written by" generative AI if you don't know what whoever is going to judge the rule…

> what does "mostly" mean?

the same as "zero", in that if the amount is zero, you're fine.

"did you pack your bags yourself?"

"no/not sure/what does that mean let's discuss" = please leave the premises now

"yes" = welcome

Re: Codeberg bans vibe coded projects

#259

Post by lenucksi »

inigyou wrote: post #170
KingOfCoders wrote: post #47

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.

It means if the guy running Codeberg doesn't like it. This is his fiefdom, not a public square. Make your own fiefdom for AI coding. You could call it Vibeberg.

Whoever did this took your inspiration and ran: https://vibeberg.org

I am amused.

Re: Codeberg bans vibe coded projects

#260

Post by cmrdporcupine »

joepie91_ wrote: post #255
KingOfCoders wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait until people get kicked off because their code is "mostly" AI and we have discussions on HN how unfair it is to kick people off for some fuzzy and unclear definition of genAI generated code. If they create a place for human written code, it would be much easier to say No AI generated code. Examples include but are not limited to: * No autocomplete * No prompt generated code * No automatic agent generated code *…

The people who would argue about how unfair it is that they got kicked out of somewhere because they flew too close to the sun, are also the same people who will rules-lawyer your "easy" list of rules and invent loopholes if they need to, just to be able to complain and stir up a crowd. Codeberg is run by people. People who can make contextual judgments. They're even pretty explicit about it in their blogpost; that i…

To be clear, nobody has been "kicked out." Not yet.

We left. Because of people talking like you, people starting from categorical purist blanket judgements and implying that anybody who used these tools is immoral and their legitimate questions about what the policy would actually be were attempted rule breaking. Before there was even a rule.

"They're even pretty explicit about it in their blogpost; that it's not going to be a search-and-destroy process, and that they're generally communicative."

The blog post came after the vote, FFS. People asking just what was going to happen got the kind of response you gave above -- complete with analogies of being "creepy guys" trying to "violate constent."

Post reply on HN