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

141–150 of 168 posts

Re: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

#141

Post by inigyou »

rpdillon wrote: post #111
inigyou wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 p…

Did you read the actual terms? It's quite clear, it says mostly written by AI.

Re: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

#142

Post by arkwin »

mynameajeff wrote: post #137
arkwin wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The moral/ethical high ground argument just spirals. Oh you drive a car? You should justify that to me. Oh you bought any piece of clothing, tech, etc where it was made in countries with cheap labor and bad labor laws? You should justify that to me. Oh you use electricity? Idk some of that is made via non-renewable resources. Oh you eat meat? So much animal suffering and land is being wasted. I get using an LLM has s…

This is about the kind of code allowed in a place to store code. Your comparisons are obviously nonsensical in relation to the actual topic at hand. If you're a part of the transit community, they have plenty to say about car dependence and its ethics. If you're a part of the fashion community, they have loads to say on fast fashion and its ethics. The list goes on and on. For all them it seems totally reasonable for…

You're missing the point. I was only saying those things to show that arguing ethics and morals is bad because it's a never-ending self-imploding purity spiral. I am not trying to argue those views, nor am I refuting some argument because the replier is trying to claim some moral high ground.

Re: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

#143

Post by inigyou »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #128
inigyou wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think about all the random git repos you've probably created for little scripts. Codeberg doesn't want to be a dumping ground for those. It wants to be a hub for software that actually matters, at least a little bit.

I would love to see other people's random little scripts. Those things tend to go hard on usefulness per amount of code.

Well start a website called Scriptberg

Re: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

#144

Post by devmor »

graemep wrote: post #129
devmor wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your phrasing in the post I replied to is not the phrasing you are using now. People frequently do bad things to people that they think are the right thing and that they still know are not “for [the victim’s] own good”. For example, removing an entire group of people from society is often presented as “for the good of everyone else”. This is an incredibly important distinction when talking about the horrific ways gay…

My meaning was clear. You are reading something I did not say into my comment. I have added to what I said, but my last comment does not contradict anything in my previous comment.

Your meaning was not clear, which was why I made certain to explain why your two comments do not mean the same thing.

If that was not enough to explain why what you said was incredibly inaccurate and toes the line of fascist propaganda, I would be happy to have an amicable discussion with you one on one - as comment threads on HN only go so deep.

Re: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

#145

Post by tingletech »

petcat wrote: post #56
conartist6 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> People who vibe code don't legally own the copyright to the output In the US at least, the PTO has not said this. They have said that artwork is not copyrightable if it was substantially "generated" with little human input. They have not said anything about software or other creative works. And certainly nothing about software that has been carefully "vibe engineered" with lots of human input, direction, and review…

What does the patent and trademark office have to do with the copyright office at LoC?

I agree that the copyright office has not said this either -- they have just said that you need to be a human to register a copyright.

Re: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

#146

Post by [deleted] »

omnimus wrote: post #108
hamburgererror wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by "social media network of Github"?

Github is social network. People follow other peoples profiles, people discover projects using "explore", trending and star system. Codeberg has some of these features but the networking effect there is pretty weak because there are way fewer people. Almost Every programmer is on Github.

[deleted]

Re: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

#147

Post by iambenm »

tptacek wrote: post #57

This makes sense. The largest project hosted on Codeberg today is, what, Zig? Zig is also openly hostile to LLM agents. It's a a clear identity for the site: a home for projects that identify as anti-LLM. I disagree with basically all of the logic they're using here, but that's the point: not every site needs to be for every person. Clearly there are quite a few software developers who agree vehemently with the stanc…

There's another underlying theme when you consider Forgejo having Codeberg as a home - anti-commercialization / sensitivity to commercialization and breaking of trust in the ecosystem. I could see anti-LLM sentiment stemming from these things a bit, in terms of what the LLM's were trained on. It's like an evolution from the olden days of slashdot commenters ragging on M$ every chance they got - only now it's AI and slop.

Re: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

#148

Post by alwaysbeconsing »

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…

> I've put some serious work into vibe-coding them. Months of work, infinite polish, infinite revisions, without writing a single line of code.

Not being pedantic, but this is not "vibe-coding", as other commenter and blog post means it at least. Parent emphasize lack of work, polish, revisions:

> They don't care about the code they push. They generate, prune, generate, prune in 10kloc increments. They're apathetic to others who might need to use this code and expect some kind of consistent architecture/interface.

> This isn't to say all LLM users don't care about their work, but that there are far more people who are happy to push slop and take credit than the reverse.

Re: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

#149

Post by rpdillon »

inigyou wrote: post #141
rpdillon wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

Did you read the actual terms? It's quite clear, it says mostly written by AI.

Yeah, that doesn't mean anything in a world of agentic tooling. That's why folks are seeking clarification of what "mostly" means. Like more than 50% of the characters in the source code? From a harness? Tab-based autocomplete? Function completion? As I said, it's simplistic thinking.

Re: Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

#150

Post by rpdillon »

hananova wrote: post #132
rpdillon wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

No, the question is a classic case of jaqing off. Not a single person is in actual doubt which side of the line they fall on. Your second paragraph is a strawman.

Not true. I have no idea if the "majority" of my recent projects was authored by AI. It's a hodge-podge that I've assembled by tweaking things myself, deleting wrong tracks, implementing touchy logic myself, and had AI do lots of boilerplate, over hundreds of commits and thousands of back and forth interactions.

In world where we cannot copyright facts, but we can copyright compendiums, we've demonstrated that we acknowledge the effort and value of curation. The way I use AI, I'm carefully curating what makes it into the released version, either by writing it myself or iterating with an AI to get it written.

You're just being dismissive.

Post reply on HN