[dead]
Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects
671–680 of 720 posts
Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects
#672Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm strongly anti-AI, but i upvoted your comment because it's the most reasonable one (in opposition to the AI ban) i've read so far. I haven't read those mastodon threads, but that sounds like a weird discourse. Are they from codeberg eV members or random passers-by (like me)? Would you mind sharing some links to some of those resources?
Just a sample, I'm still drinking my coffee. https://scholar.social/@silvermoon82@wandering.shop/11696402 ... "I'm sorry you caught abuse off the slop fondlers. Consent and boundary issues are inbuilt in their community." Or here, when someone tried to ask for similar clarification: https://tldr.nettime.org/@tante/116880003584050912 "You're coming off similar to someone trying to probe the limits of consent instead o…
The first link has been removed (or may be private).
The second link and quotes sound bad, but placed in context they actually sound more reasonable arguments to me.
The "limits of consent" was somewhat misplaced, but in reply to someone arguing in bad faith about bad-faith interpretation of the rules. So it's not comparing LLMs use with rape, but comparing testing the limits/interpretations of rules with rape.
The violating of group values (which in my understanding has semantically nothing to do with rape/consent) was in reply to someone saying if you violate the rules a little, "noone will say anything" (so it was on point).
The nazi analogy was not an analogy at all. Noone implied LLM users are nazis. It's about how to interpret what is slop: the general rule of thumb that the only people worried that "anti-nazi" rules in communities are a slippery slope are the nazis themselves. The author was suggesting the same rule of thumb would apply to slop: those worried about the rule's interpretations are the ones making the slop. (a point i don't entirely agree with but more reasonable than the quote out of context)
All in all, i must say i cringed a little reading some discussions on this topic. And maybe i've missed the worst you witnessed due to deleted posts. But maybe you were also having a strong emotional reaction and the comments taken from afar are not as dramatic as you suggested?
Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects
#673Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bad example, you obviously didn't read the codeberg ToS. Codeberg banned projects that « mostly consist of code written by "generative AI"-tools ». subsurface is apparently quality software with different contributors, and in the recent commit history i only saw a handful of commits assisted by LLMs. subsurface is not slop and is therefore not targeted by the codeberg ToS update.
> Codeberg banned projects that « mostly consist of code written by "generative AI"-tools ». Since you studied the entire policy, what is the methodology in determining a project that uses generative AI-tools or not that covers the ban? What does "mostly" mean here? Is there a percentage defined? Or did they look at sourcehut's Anti-AI policy and start from there? This is actually a good example since people can just…
> what is the methodology
Overall: there are humans performing the moderations. I trust them to have good judgement. This is not a witch hunt proposing to delete every repository where Claude has ever committed.
Personal interpretation: i think, from a very outside perspective (but that's what i'd do if i were in their place), that they'll inspect projects sorted by CI minutes consumed, then individually seeing if that's useful CI for useful projects (eg. fuzzing for tor or whatever) or if that's just slop CI for slop projects running countless steps on 100 commits an hour for software that's used by exactly 1 person (or even 0, who knows). From there, i'd start by failing the CI (and pushes) with a message inviting the user to read their mailbox, and send an email saying the user has been detected as malicious and should move away from codeberg, that existing code will remain available for a year, but no push/CI/issues will be permitted.
This will not remove 100% LLM-assisted project (which then again, was not the case), but might reduce codeberg resource usage by 10-99% depending on how bad the situation already is.
> run agents on it and hide the "slop"
I'm not sure how an agent would be able to hide that it's committing 100 commits an hour with 10k lines each, adding and removing tests as a mere inconvenience. But sure, let's assume so. That's just going against the rules, so the user may get banned.
Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects
#674Earlier quoted context omitted.
The forum is only for members of the non-profit. I'm guessing the page is 404 because we are not dues-paying members, which is reasonable.
should be 5xx then
Not in fact. On systems with permissions/privileges, you always return a 404 when a page does exist but the user doesn't have permission. Because sometimes leaking the existence of an item is a problem in itself.
Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects
#675Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Bitcoin doesn't waste energy, it uses energy to encode and secure the blockchain. Which is a waste of energy.
You know what's a real waste of energy? The federal reserve increasing the money supply by 50% in the last half decade and inflated away the savings of hundreds of millions of people that spent tens of thousands of hours of their lives earning that money through blood, sweat and tears.
I see no contradiction here.
Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects
#676Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How do you know what the politics will be next? I was very tempted to reply with a ”always has been” astronaut meme, or possibly Morpheus ”what if I told you” meme. But I would not have contributed in a good manner like that. The way I have come to understand it is that everything is indeed political. An I mean it, even driving at the speed limit is in a sense a political act saying ”I respect the laws by our polit…
> Or another example from where I live, there are two major grocery chains, one of which has owners who were recently convicted of insider trading and price fixing, and openly supports anti-LGBTQ movements. Shopping there is a political act implicitly supporting their political cause and accepting their crimes as okay, even though it might seem far removed. The trouble with this reasoning is that it's always an isola…
There is no ethical consumption under capitalism, you and I know that.
The other major chain is a consumer’s cooperative, which is owned by the members and has no stock dividend or major stock ownership. Instead ”dividends” are paid on basis of how much you money spent at the stores (somewhere around 0.5% is repaid as redeemable cheques I think). Each region of stores has yearly meetings where members are allowed to voice opinions and discuss proposals on things like that. It’s certainly not perfect, but that doesn’t mean it’s not better.
Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects
#677Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just a sample, I'm still drinking my coffee. https://scholar.social/@silvermoon82@wandering.shop/11696402 ... "I'm sorry you caught abuse off the slop fondlers. Consent and boundary issues are inbuilt in their community." Or here, when someone tried to ask for similar clarification: https://tldr.nettime.org/@tante/116880003584050912 "You're coming off similar to someone trying to probe the limits of consent instead o…
The first link has been removed (or may be private). The second link and quotes sound bad, but placed in context they actually sound more reasonable arguments to me. The "limits of consent" was somewhat misplaced, but in reply to someone arguing in bad faith about bad-faith interpretation of the rules. So it's not comparing LLMs use with rape, but comparing testing the limits/interpretations of rules with rape. The v…
You say yourself you didn't even see all the comments.
Look you can be "anti-AI" all you want. I think this is a crude way to exist in the world -- positioning oneself morally on category rather than contingency -- but fine. But I expect basic decorum in a community. And what I got from those posts was: we decided people who used these tools are not part of our community -- are bad people who have "crossed a line" -- and anything goes in terms of how we respond to them. Despite that not being at all part of the terms of how Codeberg was initially defined or defined when I joined the organization.
Putting a sham "democratic" discussion around it doesn't save it. When I was involved more heavily in activist politics I would have been disgusted if an organization I was working with behaved like this; it's in-group implicit consensus masquerading as formal process.
Anyways, good riddance, I'm glad to be departing from such people, but no thanks for wasting my time.
Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects
#678Earlier quoted context omitted.
The first link has been removed (or may be private). The second link and quotes sound bad, but placed in context they actually sound more reasonable arguments to me. The "limits of consent" was somewhat misplaced, but in reply to someone arguing in bad faith about bad-faith interpretation of the rules. So it's not comparing LLMs use with rape, but comparing testing the limits/interpretations of rules with rape. The v…
You say yourself you didn't even see all the comments. Look you can be "anti-AI" all you want. I think this is a crude way to exist in the world -- positioning oneself morally on category rather than contingency -- but fine. But I expect basic decorum in a community. And what I got from those posts was: we decided people who used these tools are not part of our community -- are bad people who have "crossed a line" --…
> You say yourself you didn't even see all the comments.
Yes, and i'm not claiming you're wrong in your feeling that some people were excessive about this. Though i could argue that LLM deployment has been excessive too and this is a very minor comeback compared to the pressure people have faced to adopt LLM tools (eg. at work) or let new AI datacenters ruin their neighborhoods and electricity/water networks.
> it's in-group implicit consensus masquerading as formal process
That's indeed a problem in some circles. However, i fail to see what's the alternative. Letting a debate open for years before opening a formal vote sounds reasonable. That's far from the entryist tactics of building consensus behind closed doors in a secret affinity group then faking organicity and taking everyone by surprise with an "urgent" formal decision. I'm interested if you have feedback on how to organize more "democratically".
> I'm glad to be departing from such people, but no thanks for wasting my time.
I'm glad you feel relieved, and i'm sorry you lost time and energy in a collective where you don't fit in the end.
Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects
#679Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not to my knowledge, but without a structured framework for those decisions, I have little confidence that enforcement will remain fair and even-handed moving forward. I also suspect that the ambiguity of the “reputation” clause will be abused in the future.
Codeberg doesn't allow porn. Are you concerned about it because you don't know if half a nipple is okay? Or is that rule fine with you, actually?
I would like a clear process by which these things are judged in the event of disagreement, yes.
Re: Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects
#680Earlier quoted context omitted.
Once again, the stability of a BDFL is vindicated. Democracy works ok in extremely complex systems like giant distros—Debian’s governance is slow but functional—but it seems to need guardrails around the process. (From what I can tell, an excruciating process is the best guardrail. Glacially slow decision-making means that mobs burn themselves out before they get to voting.)
BDFL is worse for all the reasons you mention. Stability? A BDFL can make decisions at a whim that radically destabilize and change the project. Lording over and causing immense harm to the community without any sort of accountability is a recipe for disaster. Good for everyone? A BDFL can unilaterally make decisions that prioritize their own desires over everyone else. It becomes about their personality rather than…
You can say all these things, and yet my experience with BDFLs in reality has been the opposite. More often, they make good decisions that continue their vision for the project, rather than abruptly redirecting the project. This is because productive people are often relatively consistent in their vision and direction.
Small community “democracy” OTOH often devolves into ochlocracy, or reactive mob rule. Small communities are easily swayed, don’t often have a durable vision, and can easily be infiltrated by people who don’t have the best interest of the project (or the users) at heart.
The only thing that can offset these effects is a heavy process, like Debian has, which slows down the mob and forces everyone to consider all sides of the issue. This can actually work! And for some projects it’s a better fit than a BDFL.