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

Codeberg Divides

lucumr.pocoo.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 242 posts

Re: Codeberg Divides

#51

Post by aliasxneo »

kalleboo wrote: post #39
aliasxneo wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on this precedence, if I'm accepted into the community today, how would I know I'll be accepted tomorrow? If you're literally just using Codeberg as a mirror, then sure, it doesn't really matter much. But like you said, that's not what they are building. They want people to invest in the community. So now, as an investor of my hard-earned free time, I'm faced with the question on whether all my investment can g…

Hacker News recently banned LLM-generated comments due to a vague vibe check of the community. Do you feel the same way about the slippery slope of Hacker News moderation?

Did it get much attention? I don't know of a single person who finds value in LLM generated comments on social platforms. The fact that Codeberg is getting attention for this move is likely because it alienated a part of the community that was previously engaging, enough to generate constructive responses. I didn't see the same thing happening with this HN change.

Re: Codeberg Divides

#52

Post by aliasxneo »

johnfn wrote: post #38
free_bip wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are effectively saying you do not trust the judgement of the community to accept you long term. Why is that? Is it because you believe there would be a new policy that would exclude your workflow? What would such a policy be? Do you really, reasonably believe it would be implemented "tomorrow"? Do you think adapting to such a policy would be unreasonable? Or is it because you don't trust the judgement of the peop…

I think the burden of proof is on you to argue that Codeberg will stop at exactly two policies, given they haven’t said they will do that, but they have already banned things they don’t like. A slippery slope argument isn't a fallacy when you've already slipped down the slope twice.

I really don't understand the argument, to be honest. If somebody is participating in something with a perceived expectation, and then that expectation gets contradicted not once, but twice, why is it unreasonable to assume it might happen again? I'm not being facetious, I genuinely don't understand the line of thinking.

Re: Codeberg Divides

#53

Post by cmrdporcupine »

squigz wrote: post #34
lowsong wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm faced with the question on whether all my investment can go up in flames on the whims of a shadow group. What "shadow group" would that be? The paying members of Codeberg e.V. who voted to pass this motion?

And also like... this is how literally any community works? You "invest your free time" in it, then you do something that goes against the values of that community... yeah, of course that big bad "shadow group" (in other words, the admins/moderators) is going to do something.

The point is that the stated values of said group changed.

Re: Codeberg Divides

#54

Post by squigz »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #53
squigz wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And also like... this is how literally any community works? You "invest your free time" in it, then you do something that goes against the values of that community... yeah, of course that big bad "shadow group" (in other words, the admins/moderators) is going to do something.

The point is that the stated values of said group changed.

Yes, this happens with most communities. It's called growth.

As an example, HN now has this in the guidelines:

> Don't post generated text or AI-edited text. HN is for conversation between humans.

Does this signify the end of HN? Or does it represent understandable growth in an evolving world?

Re: Codeberg Divides

#55

Post by cmrdporcupine »

qweqwe14 wrote: post #50
gregdaniels421 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't seem like a great take on this. You seem to be implying that only unemployed people choose not to use AI, and anything that doesn't use AI is a useless toy project. There were decades of software written before modern LLMs, and a lot of people choose to hand write their software as a form of maintaining their skill. Just like people practice martial arts even though we have guns. If you reflect on your w…

> Just like people practice martial arts even though we have guns. The whole point of martial arts is the art itself. The point of software isn't the process of creating software (it was never about that), it's the end result, and all people care about is that the end result is good. And if you don't like that, you can choose another industry.

There are obviously multiple ways people can see the act of making software. And many at once. Profession, craft, passion, art.

And the differing perspectives on that do at least in part explain a lot of the conflict here.

Personally, I think "AI" use in art is an abhorrent thing that warrants a highly negative response. And when I was younger and even more pretentious than I am now, I often thought my code as some kind of "art." So I can stretch my mind to see how people who see things that way would have that same gut reaction.

But many like you only see the point as being the end result, so to them this all looks like pointless theatre.

One of the many dramatic things the "AI" tooling has done is to make all these divisions in perspective more obvious and more dramatic.

Re: Codeberg Divides

#56

Post by free_bip »

aliasxneo wrote: post #46
free_bip wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are effectively saying you do not trust the judgement of the community to accept you long term. Why is that? Is it because you believe there would be a new policy that would exclude your workflow? What would such a policy be? Do you really, reasonably believe it would be implemented "tomorrow"? Do you think adapting to such a policy would be unreasonable? Or is it because you don't trust the judgement of the peop…

> You are effectively saying you do not trust the judgement of the community to accept you long term. Correct. I was previously engaging with this community and had moved some repos over from GitHub. One of those repos deals with cryptography that has an intersection with "crypto" projects. Due to vagueness of the language ratified, it's unclear whether the repo now violates the ToS. This completely caught me off gua…

That seems like a completely different concern than what you originally stated? You're not worried about future policies, you're worried about the policy that was just passed.

And for what it's worth, it seems like they only care if the project is directly crypto related (e.g if you had a repo directly implementing a Monero node, that would probably not be allowed). If it's just a repo that implements a generic Cryptography concept that happens to be used both in crypto and elsewhere, then I don't see what the problem would be.

Again, the rules are judgement based. That means you can interact with the community to get clarification, and make your case that your project is worth keeping.

Re: Codeberg Divides

#57

Post by cmrdporcupine »

squigz wrote: post #54
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that the stated values of said group changed.

Yes, this happens with most communities. It's called growth. As an example, HN now has this in the guidelines: > Don't post generated text or AI-edited text. HN is for conversation between humans. Does this signify the end of HN? Or does it represent understandable growth in an evolving world?

It's not analogous at all. I moved my project to codeberg because the values were one way, and GitHub didn't match my values. I pour my heart and soul and time into my project. I also used AI tooling in a fashion as I saw fit. Now I'm reading I'm not welcome -- retroactively -- because I touched "bad" tools.

So I had to spend the last 3 days dealing with all the fall out from that and moving my project -- which was not insignificant -- docker images, debian package hosting, documentation references, existing in-flight pull requests, blog posts, build/release processes, my CI configuration, etc. etc. I'm nowhere near done.

An individual making an AI slop comment on HN loses that one comment to moderation and moves on.

Re: Codeberg Divides

#58

Post by vrganj »

krupan wrote: post #49
free_bip wrote: post #21

I think this move by Codeberg is lowkey genius. They're trying to build a community based on a set of shared values. Those who disagree with those values are now self-selecting out of the Codeberg community, which is exactly the point of passing these kinds of resolutions. The fact that the rule is open for interpretation means that they can effectively shut down malicious actors (i.e those who intentionally misrepre…

I've been thinking along these lines more and more. Trying to specify exact limits and trying to account for every possible situation when making rules just encourages people to find holes and workarounds. It creates a game, a competition between the rule makers and everyone else. When instead you state higher level values and ask for cooperation, it encourages us to work together. It's the Honor System instead of a…

That's actually how EU law works! I think it's also why US companies keep getting in trouble here, they try to loophole-lawyer like at home, but it just... doesn't work that way.

I had a whole long conversation about this with another commenter a while ago if you're interested in learning more: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48707697

Re: Codeberg Divides

#59

Post by lowsong »

skinfaxi wrote: post #48
lowsong wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Without additional explanation this reads like flamebait.

Flippant maybe, but not bait.

AI is many things, and a moral choice is one of them. Codeberg's stance isn't a moral one as much as a technical one, but there is a very strong argument that the use of AI is inherently immoral.

Re: Codeberg Divides

#60

Post by aliasxneo »

free_bip wrote: post #56
aliasxneo wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You are effectively saying you do not trust the judgement of the community to accept you long term. Correct. I was previously engaging with this community and had moved some repos over from GitHub. One of those repos deals with cryptography that has an intersection with "crypto" projects. Due to vagueness of the language ratified, it's unclear whether the repo now violates the ToS. This completely caught me off gua…

That seems like a completely different concern than what you originally stated? You're not worried about future policies, you're worried about the policy that was just passed. And for what it's worth, it seems like they only care if the project is directly crypto related (e.g if you had a repo directly implementing a Monero node, that would probably not be allowed). If it's just a repo that implements a generic Crypt…

> That seems like a completely different concern than what you originally stated?

I started with a hypothetical. Then I used an actual real-world example. I have 100+ repos on GitHub spanning a wide array of technologies. If I moved all 100+ over, how do I know I won't fall afoul of whatever the community votes to ban next?

The point is Codeberg isn't a good fit for my situation which needs more continuity and less surprises, and that's been made readily apparent now. So I'm leaving, just like many other people who have been posting about it.

Post reply on HN