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

171–180 of 242 posts

Re: Codeberg Divides

#171

Post by yogthos »

WolfeReader wrote: post #102
yogthos wrote: post #45

A great way to ensure that most developers will not be using Codeberg going forward. While there's a ton of drama around LLM use right now, anybody who's actually used this tech in anger understands that these tools really do work, and that they will only be used more in the future. I guess Codeberg is angling to become a small artisanal community, and there might certainly be a niche for that.

If the outcome is that most vibe-coders leave Codeberg alone, that seems like a win for Codeberg.

The outcome is obviously going to be that most coders leave Codeberg because LLMs are not going anywhere, and they will continue to be integrating into people's workflows. But perhaps Codeberg intends on becoming something akin to a digital Amish community, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Re: Codeberg Divides

#172

Post by kajman »

hingler36 wrote: post #130

This decision may also be related to infrastructure. Even if Codeberg wasn't against heavy LLM use for moral reasons, their limited infrastructure would have a hard time keeping up with the massive output that LLMs are capable of.

For once I wish they would've taken a more technological solution to this social problem and enforced more limited CI time and disk space quotas by default. Seems like it'd be fairer and require less active policing. My read from their post was that the resolution had more of an ideological bent than being just about resources, which is certainly their community's right to have.

Re: Codeberg Divides

#173

Post by archagon »

znpy wrote: post #161
dist-epoch wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Yeah something i noticed is that the richer the area is the more disconnected from reality they are. LLMs are here to stay. The genie’s out of the lamp. Get over it.

No, people aren't going to get over it. Prepare to adjust your expectations.

Re: Codeberg Divides

#174

Post by jujube3 »

Pay08 wrote: post #108
Aurornis wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve seen so many variations of this where a community starts adding more rules that are open to judgment. Removing the obvious rule breakers looks like an easy win at first. Then over time the list of rules grows. Small groups become good at navigating the rule making process and getting changes pushed through. Before you know it, small groups of highly invested people are wielding the rules and the rule making proc…

Not to mention what happens when these rules cease to be rules on purely technical matters. What if they make a rule against the site allowing hosting the code *of* AI agents for example?

Codeberg did make such a rule. Their announcement explicitly says that "Projects heavily tied to the LLM ecosytem" are "no longer [...] welcome on Codeberg". The code for an AI agent would definitely fall into that category.

Re: Codeberg Divides

#175

Post by jujube3 »

pooploop64 wrote: post #168
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…

Did you know GitHub removes things they deem to be malware? Malware is a very subjective classification, so who watches the watchmen? How do we know they won't start removing things that are deemed harmful just for competing with Microsoft products? Hell, letting them have a mechanism to moderate the site's content at all is a huge risk to society's freedom and continued existence. Aliens could arrive any time and sh…

Removing malware or illegal content is very different than removing things for political reasons.

Re: Codeberg Divides

#176

Post by no-name-here »

card_zero wrote: post #72
aliasxneo wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If they have a coherent set of values, then that's why. Then you have a theory of mind about the admins, and they weren't behaving erratically, but it was your original expectations that were incorrect.

Codeberg has existed since 2018. Was it clear to you a few years ago that things like 1) projects tied to AI, 2) mostly AI code, and 3) crypto would be banned? If not, then what makes you believe you now know their future actions if you didn’t before?

Re: Codeberg Divides

#177

Post by no-name-here »

nmz wrote: post #79
johnfn wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They won't. No company will, I think the best quote I've heard this week is from the proton CEO on the Decoder podcast. "No company is going to jail for you." If vibe code is of questionable legality, then the best thing to do is to remain guarded until its legal standing is determined. It is simply an added bonus that it prevents slop that consumes data on servers for projects that nobody cares about enough to not h…

> No company is going to jail for you.

Are you arguing a Codeberg member had a legitimate fear of being jailed for hosting others’ AI code? And GitHub/all other hosters should have the same legitimate fear of being jailed a long as they don’t ban the same? Or is this more of a straw man? Or were you bringing up that quote to point out that those trying to defend Codeberg are using completely fabricated arguments?

Re: Codeberg Divides

#178

Post by WolfeReader »

yogthos wrote: post #171
WolfeReader wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the outcome is that most vibe-coders leave Codeberg alone, that seems like a win for Codeberg.

The outcome is obviously going to be that most coders leave Codeberg because LLMs are not going anywhere, and they will continue to be integrating into people's workflows. But perhaps Codeberg intends on becoming something akin to a digital Amish community, and there's nothing wrong with that.

The current adoption of LLMs by developers seems to be a bit more than 20%.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/10/06/about-1-i...

This is just for professional jobs (and is 9 months old) of course.

Re: Codeberg Divides

#179

Post by illiac786 »

dijit wrote: post #136
illiac786 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are saying this like pursuing profit above anything else is not a moral judgment one can heavily disagree with.

Pursuing profit is not a moral judgement. It's at best neutral, and at worst considered to be immoral. Nobody says "I need to make a billion dollars because of my morals".

It is, especially the “above everything wise” definitely is an ethical decision, and one many often disagree with.

Re: Codeberg Divides

#180

Post by illiac786 »

skybrian wrote: post #140
illiac786 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are saying this like pursuing profit above anything else is not a moral judgment one can heavily disagree with.

Is Linux really about "profit before all else?" That seems like a moral judgement that many would disagree with.

I didn’t say Linux is about this? I’m not following you.
Post reply on HN