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

Codeberg bans vibe coded projects

codeberg.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 298 posts

Re: Codeberg bans vibe coded projects

#171

Post by inigyou »

rdsubhas wrote: post #137
KingOfCoders wrote: post #29

What is a vibe coded project? Where does it start? Cursor autocomplete? One shot Github project copies? [Edit] The pull link is https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/pulls/1253/files and says "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 (…

Noone can discuss in good faith if the argument is: "If generated in bulk by vibe code" >> "what if I generate word by word with autocomplete". This is IMHO the reason why we can't have sanity, because there are people ready to hack it.

That's why terms and laws are written vaguely. If you're obviously on one side of the line then you're obviously on one side of the line. If you're straddling the line, your punishment depends upon how the judge feels that day. So it would be wise not to risk it.

Re: Codeberg bans vibe coded projects

#172

Post by inigyou »

akmarinov wrote: post #119
noosphr wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have to ask then the answer is no.

I mean Codeberg will pretty soon start having to ask. How do they determine that and who'll be in charge to find violations there?

It isn't a public service. It is one person offering his resources to help FOSS. He decides if you align with his mission.

Re: Codeberg bans vibe coded projects

#173

Post by inigyou »

K0nserv wrote: post #13
guessmyname wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people leave the “Co-authored-by: ” lines in their Git commits [1]. I’m not sure why exactly, but I suppose it's either laziness or a lack of care. Regardless, if I were Codeberg, that would be the first thing I’d detect, and then I might use a Random Forest Classifier to identify the rest. [1] https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests/how-tos/commit-chan...

I feel it's a faux pas to pass off work entirely or partially done with AI as your own. I make sure I leave those lines in specifically for that reason.

Me too, whenever I check in something compiled by a compiler. I always make sure to credit GCC!

Re: Codeberg bans vibe coded projects

#175

Post by Ekaros »

applfanboysbgon wrote: post #153
rarisma wrote: post #49

Baffling. Why are they the arbiters of what is made? Also does this break s230?

It's absolutely hilarious that vibe coders see themselves as some sort of protected class who are being discriminated against and think they can use the law to force an unrelated third-party to host their files for free. AI psychosis is a trip.

When from what I have understood they can easily deploy fully featured alternative in afternoon or less. Just take a single weekend and they have as good place to host their code ready, tested and secure. So should not in anyway be a big deal for them.

Re: Codeberg bans vibe coded projects

#176

Post by lelanthran »

KingOfCoders wrote: post #47
cwillu wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“You must not share projects that mostly consist of code written by "generative AI"-tools (including services such as Claude , OpenAI Codex ).” Seems pretty clear to me?

What is mostly? >50%? >75%? What does "written by generative AI" means? Autocomplete? IDE-with-AI-normal-classname-completion? Everything not typed by a human. I personally don't find this clear at all and see many unhappy discussions in the future for Codeberg.

> I personally don't find this clear at all and see many unhappy discussions in the future for Codeberg.

You don't understand their goal in doing this?

Frequently (much more than we'd like to admit) actual contracts leave loopholes in, said loopholes which go against the spirit of the contract. It is not unusual to have a concrete contract that allows more (or less) than the spirit the contract was signed in.

Rather than nitpicking the contract (the TOU), why do you think they need this updated contract in the first place?

Re: Codeberg bans vibe coded projects

#177

Post by lilerjee »

surgical_fire wrote: post #127
lilerjee wrote: post #34

Good job But how to check which projects are vibe coded?

I think the idea is that they can point to their terms of service in case of issues. If a project is found to be violating their terms of service they can terminate the account without much fuss.

Maybe this is their point

Re: Codeberg bans vibe coded projects

#178

Post by lelanthran »

derdi wrote: post #144
KingOfCoders wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is mostly? >50%? >75%? What does "written by generative AI" means? Autocomplete? IDE-with-AI-normal-classname-completion? Everything not typed by a human. I personally don't find this clear at all and see many unhappy discussions in the future for Codeberg.

> What is mostly? >50%? >75%? 1. Don't ask us, ask the Codeberg people in the thread above. 2. If you're not sure you can meet Codeberg's terms of service, do what others are claiming to do: Take your repositories elsewhere. 3. I'll just hypothesize that you don't have Codeberg repositories and are only arguing here for argument's sake.

So much this!

Here's what I cannot understand - the spirit behind this update is clear: to carve out a space for human-written projects.

Now we have a bunch of people nit-picking what "human-written" means, with a bunch of snide "Hah! Gotcha!" thrown in for good measure...

"What about if it autocompletes - that's not written by a human!!! Lusers!!!"

"Hey, I used LLMs to rubberduck this; that's not fully written by a human even though I typed it!!!"

"Hey, I used a _KEYBOARD_ to type it in; that's the computer and keyboard firmware that /akshually/ wrote the code!!!"

Face it, if you need to know how close to the line you can go without going over it, then Codeberg is probably not for you anyway - there's no need to nitpick the wording.

If you, in your own words, "write your own code", you don't really care where the line is because you're so far from it anyway.

There is no scenario where you'd want to nitpick the wording...

Re: Codeberg bans vibe coded projects

#179

Post by skeledrew »

guessmyname wrote: post #7
saidnooneever wrote: post #2

i wonder how they will detect it though. is there some good tool to tell them if code files someone submit were outputs or altered by LLMs?

Most people leave the “Co-authored-by: ” lines in their Git commits [1]. I’m not sure why exactly, but I suppose it's either laziness or a lack of care. Regardless, if I were Codeberg, that would be the first thing I’d detect, and then I might use a Random Forest Classifier to identify the rest. [1] https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests/how-tos/commit-chan...

I expressly leave them there for transparency and potential future analysis. I'm even working on a coauthor attribution format for work done with Pi agent, as well as when there are multiple models collaborating. If Codeberg wants to gatekeep on AI-generated code, I'll leave them to their tiny niche.

Re: Codeberg bans vibe coded projects

#180

Post by K0nserv »

inigyou wrote: post #173
K0nserv wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel it's a faux pas to pass off work entirely or partially done with AI as your own. I make sure I leave those lines in specifically for that reason.

Me too, whenever I check in something compiled by a compiler. I always make sure to credit GCC!

I don't usually check in compiled artifacts myself.
Post reply on HN