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

281–290 of 298 posts

Re: Codeberg bans vibe coded projects

#281

Post by KingOfCoders »

inigyou wrote: post #171
rdsubhas wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So no autocomplete. This is why people vote against their interest, they always assume laws are to reign in on other people until they understand the intention was different from what they understood and it hits them. Same old story.

Re: Codeberg bans vibe coded projects

#282

Post by KingOfCoders »

customguy wrote: post #258
badsectoracula wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Before Codeberg has to ask that, the person who would upload has to ask it themselves. People know what they did, or didn't. This is going in circles. For someone to "ask it themselves", first they need to know what to ask. But the term is vague: what does "mostly" mean? You can't ask yourself if your code is "mostly consist of code written by" generative AI if you don't know what whoever is going to judge the rule…

> what does "mostly" mean? the same as "zero", in that if the amount is zero, you're fine. "did you pack your bags yourself?" "no/not sure/what does that mean let's discuss" = please leave the premises now "yes" = welcome

So no autocomplete.

Re: Codeberg bans vibe coded projects

#283

Post by KingOfCoders »

badsectoracula wrote: post #273
customguy wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what does "mostly" mean? the same as "zero", in that if the amount is zero, you're fine. "did you pack your bags yourself?" "no/not sure/what does that mean let's discuss" = please leave the premises now "yes" = welcome

That is only your own interpretation. It is one that does conform to the rule but only because it takes one extreme side of the potential "amount" of allowed genAI use. However this isn't what the terms update state. If that was the meaning then they would have explicitly written "zero" - or something along these lines. The fact they didn't do that (despite the update being there for weeks and people were able to vot…

"That is only your own interpretation."

There are many people on the internet who think their interpretation of things i the only right one. Don't argue.

Re: Codeberg bans vibe coded projects

#284

Post by thih9 »

skeledrew wrote: post #186
jjgreen wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once most code is AI slop, then the training data is tainted -- you know what happens when you eat your own crap ...

> eat your own crap Technically you do. Every living thing eats it's own and every other living thing's crap. Just that it's recycled - through other living things - crap (does it stop being "your own" when it's processed by another?).

What if you crap so much and your craps are so pervasive that you cannot find anyone else’s crap but yours - unprocessed, or with very little processing.

Re: Codeberg bans vibe coded projects

#285

Post by zerobanger »

KingOfCoders wrote: post #279
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be clear, nobody has been "kicked out." Not yet. We left . Because of people talking like you, people starting from categorical purist blanket judgements and implying that anybody who used these tools is immoral and their legitimate questions about what the policy would actually be were attempted rule breaking. Before there was even a rule. " They're even pretty explicit about it in their blogpost; that it's not g…

"that it's not going to be a search-and-destroy process" Now. What about next week? When the mood changes?

[dead]

Re: Codeberg bans vibe coded projects

#286

Post by inigyou »

lenucksi wrote: post #259
inigyou wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It means if the guy running Codeberg doesn't like it. This is his fiefdom, not a public square. Make your own fiefdom for AI coding. You could call it Vibeberg.

Whoever did this took your inspiration and ran: https://vibeberg.org I am amused.

Login is required to see repositories, apparently

Re: Codeberg bans vibe coded projects

#287

Post by lproven »

KingOfCoders wrote: post #280
lproven wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. "Most" is clear and unambiguous. It means more X than Y. The value of X is larger than the value of Y. X = bot slop ; Y = human written code In your question, 90% human written, 10% bot generated; no, it is not "most".

LOC? NLOC? Files? Calculated during the last week? Day? Month? Year?

Quibbling.

If someone is in the process of intentionally turning their project into slop, replacing human written code with bot-extruded code, then they can pay to host their own...

... And they should still be held fully responsible for the true environmental cost of the power and resources used to run the bots replacing craft with slop.

This activity is criminally wasteful, and should be treated as a crime.

Re: Codeberg bans vibe coded projects

#289

Post by amiga386 »

I already didn't like Codeberg, even though I am a free software developer, I prefer my politics to be software distribution, privacy/GDPR and right-to-repair rather than $CURRENT_THING... if I had to pick, I'd probably pick GNU Savannah.

With this sudden fallout, I feel vindicated to have not moved to Codeberg. I like neither AI slop nor the crypto hustlers, but I like organisations that suddenly change their minds even less.

Self-hosting is the way.

Re: Codeberg bans vibe coded projects

#290

Post by customguy »

KingOfCoders wrote: post #283
badsectoracula wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is only your own interpretation. It is one that does conform to the rule but only because it takes one extreme side of the potential "amount" of allowed genAI use. However this isn't what the terms update state. If that was the meaning then they would have explicitly written "zero" - or something along these lines. The fact they didn't do that (despite the update being there for weeks and people were able to vot…

"That is only your own interpretation." There are many people on the internet who think their interpretation of things i the only right one. Don't argue.

"I totally could make a point but you wouldn't listen anyway so I won't"

Yeah, right.

If you come up with "so no auto-complete" that's totally a you-having-no-arguments issue, not me not giving a fair hearing to something nobody said, because it doesn't exist.

Post reply on HN