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

111–120 of 168 posts

Re: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

#111

Post by rpdillon »

inigyou wrote: post #77
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that the comparisons used in both cases are absolutely inappropriate. I never said they were saying vibecoders are Nazis or rapists. I'm saying using those as analogous/similar comparison points displays an absolutely bonkers lack of decorum, nuanced thinking, or "democratic" behaviour and also trivializes those actually horrendous cases. More worrisome is I saw this same set of comparisons made over and…

> I'm saying using those as analogous/similar comparison points displays an absolutely bonkers lack of decorum, nuanced thinking, or "democratic" behaviour and also trivializes those actually horrendous cases. Are they correct ? That should be the most important thing. > More worrisome is I saw this same set of comparisons made over and over in multiple threads. Maybe because they're correct > because people legitima…

Good grief. The question is simply "what is vibecoding?" You're taking the position (without saying so) that any use of AI in coding is banned: from Cursor autocomplete to full omp harness chugging with Fable, whether or not the person has taken decades to learn coding, whether or not the code was reviewed professionally.

I suspect the reason you're not saying this is because when you write it out, it's obviously a policy rooted in simplistic thinking, similar to "We won't host code if it was written in Emacs" or "We won't host code if it uses spaces instead of tabs."

Re: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

#112

Post by JodieBenitez »

AussieWog93 wrote: post #92

I run an open source project, contribute to others and in the last 6 months I've set up two homelabs (one at work, one at home) out of hard rubbish/ewaste running a bunch of open source software. I don't get the anti-AI sentiment. From the maintainer standpoint, it basically eliminated entire classes of frustrating, tedious jobs that existed before - especially with regards to packaging and CI/CD No longer do I have…

> I don't get the anti-AI sentiment.

There are valid social, ecological and maybe philosophical concerns.

But on the technical aspects... I don't get it either. It's a wonderful tool. even if it didn't write a single line, the fact that it can analyse a source and explain things to me in context is a game changer.

Re: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

#113

Post by duped »

somnium_sn wrote: post #79

It is fine to have corners of the internet that run in a particular way. My issue however, is that this is changing the rules on people. Codeberg initially was a FLOSS alternative to big company Github. Now it's more narrow, an alternative to Github and only for people who don't want to use AI. What's the next step? This is the problem, you either a platform and be, within legal reasons, agnostic, or you are trying t…

I kind of like the idea of a software forge that won't host the Torment Nexus discovered in 2027 because its TOS didn't contain language about it in 2026.

Re: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

#115

Post by hombre_fatal »

MSFT_Edging wrote: post #90
arkwin wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can see the point you are trying to make, and I'll make a counterpoint to that. When you play the "didn't earn" card, you are really getting nowhere. It's a bad argument. It's putting up the gate, "I feel you didn't work hard enough for X result, but I did, so I must be better" I drive a manual car. Should I hate every automatic car driver? I have a master's degree in cybersecurity; should I shit on everyone who do…

It's less about "earning" and more the attitude and approach to the work. The flippant nature of people expecting the same respect for some piece of work that was churned out by a machine, as someone who understands every part. I know I used "earn" a lot in the last reply, but that was a shorthand for something more complex. A combination of appreciation, discipline, and a common work style. The LLM stuff is being ga…

> The flippant nature of people expecting the same respect for some piece of work that was churned out by a machine, as someone who understands every part.

> with people who have fully adopted claude in their work flows. They don't care about the code they push.

This just isn't true and it's the cynnical self-limiting assumption the belies rules like the TFA. It's like when HN was full of people claiming that you weren't a real engineer and didn't care about code if you used Javascript.

I've vibe-coded some pretty cool things that I use daily, and I've put some serious work into vibe-coding them. Months of work, infinite polish, infinite revisions, without writing a single line of code. It feels like the right level to be at with 20 years of software experience.

LLM use has merely freed up the chore work so that I can focus on more important directional concerns, polish the testing system to completely derisk it, and then do it in parallel with everything else I'm working on.

I'm starting to see the "LLM users don't care" assumption as a somewhat understandable defensive posture that mostly comes from resistance to the world changing and watching the value of our expertise go to zero. Something I still grapple with every week btw. Maybe if you accepted the idea that veteran software engineers can completely replace the code writing experience with AI while delivering good software, it involves swallowing a pill you're not ready to swallow?

Codeberg's new rule about LLMs is about as enforceable as a rule against bad code quality and that is the more interesting discussion.

Re: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

#116

Post by Narishma »

conartist6 wrote: post #36
croemer wrote: post #22

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 no…

I was wondering if copyright was part of it, but their blog post didn't mention copyright. For me that would be the single biggest reason. People who vibe code don't legally own the copyright to the output (to the best of my hobbyist-non-lawyer knowledge), so they cannot themselves provide permission for others to be able to legally copy.

The blog post did mention license laundering, which is one of the copyright issues with LLMs.

Re: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

#117

Post by lenkite »

arkwin wrote: post #91
jraph wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You are not creating software with the exact rules that I have made up in my head on how software should be made, so I'm going to build a wall and hate you and the code you make. More like: > You are creating software using a tool incurring massive risks and costs for the rest of us even though we don't use it ourselves, we don't want you here . > plenty of people are using open offline models to code …that needed…

Open source developer: I'm going to open source my software so the world can use it for whatever they want! World: creates LLMs Open source developer: >:( Maybe don't open source your software if you're going to get mad about it?

> Open source developer: I'm going to open source my software so the world can use it for whatever they want!

No, you are describing a SPECIFIC License called the The Unlicense: https://opensource.org/license/unlicense

This is ONLY ONE such OSS license and does not apply to all OSS.

Re: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

#118

Post by arkwin »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #115
MSFT_Edging wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's less about "earning" and more the attitude and approach to the work. The flippant nature of people expecting the same respect for some piece of work that was churned out by a machine, as someone who understands every part. I know I used "earn" a lot in the last reply, but that was a shorthand for something more complex. A combination of appreciation, discipline, and a common work style. The LLM stuff is being ga…

> The flippant nature of people expecting the same respect for some piece of work that was churned out by a machine, as someone who understands every part. > with people who have fully adopted claude in their work flows. They don't care about the code they push. This just isn't true and it's the cynnical self-limiting assumption the belies rules like the TFA. It's like when HN was full of people claiming that you wer…

Thank you; that is probably a better way to put into words what I am feeling.

I've never called myself a developer. But I've been playing with Linux and looking at code for the better part of 20 years.

I've done a lot of larger solution development. "Glue code," etc.

I think I use LLMs quite well. I mean, on some level, I understand software architecture and system architecture.

I've (before LLMs) had a master's degree, CISSP, Sec+, CEH. I am a pretty "qualified" person for whatever that means.

AI has made the chore work easy. It also allows me to think deeper about something than just bashing my head against code. Instead of spending time writing code, I'm researching technologies and thinking strategically about what something should look like years from now.

I've spent weeks and months, even on pet projects with LLMs. Things I use daily too.

But somehow "LLM coders don't care" is just annoying.

Re: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

#119

Post by RetroTechie »

thaumaturgy wrote: post #87
arkwin wrote: post #48

[flagged]

Hiiiiii, developer who hates LLMs here. waves I think I've avoided all of the LLM debate thus far, but I figure that some of my actual positions probably ought to be represented in this discussion instead of shadow-boxing. I hate LLMs because I've had to sink a lot of hours into defending services and content that I host for myself or for others from companies that couldn't be bothered to write polite crawlers. This…

I dislike current-gen AI for much the same reasons you mentioned: the externalities its development & use are causing.

The tech itself is neutral in this respect. It's those externalities that need to be addressed. Don't want to depend on a subscription service? Then run open models under your own control (if you 'have to' use AI). Don't want that new datacenter disturbing a town's water supply? Make 'em pay extra such that existing users can keep being served @ the same price.

Do such things across the board, and responsible AI companies will be forced to be more community-friendly.

Re: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

#120

Post by arkwin »

lenkite wrote: post #117
arkwin wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Open source developer: I'm going to open source my software so the world can use it for whatever they want! World: creates LLMs Open source developer: >:( Maybe don't open source your software if you're going to get mad about it?

> Open source developer: I'm going to open source my software so the world can use it for whatever they want! No, you are describing a SPECIFIC License called the The Unlicense: https://opensource.org/license/unlicense This is ONLY ONE such OSS license and does not apply to all OSS.

US courts have ruled (for better or worse) that using code to train LLMs is a transformative piece of work and not subject to the original copyright.
Post reply on HN