hckrnws

For me that would be the single biggest reason. People who vibe code don't legally own the copyright to the output (to the best of my hobbyist-non-lawyer knowledge), so they cannot themselves provide permission for others to be able to legally copy.

Beyond the reasons stated I think there is probably a more general (albeit less tangible) benefit to having a forge with a reputation for being human-focused. Like if you see a project on Codeberg you can reasonably expect it's probably not completely machine-generated slop, which is no longer an expectation I have for GitHub. People are getting offended about it but why not just use a different forge for your vibe-coded projects?

The main risk is that it leads to loads of distracting discussions about whether projects are "too vibe-coded" or whether they fall on the right side of the line. I would assume Codeberg would be relatively light touch about enforcement in marginal cases, which equally might blunt the effectiveness of the rule but ultimately, it doesn't have to be perfect to be useful.

Any voices that said anything on the PR or on threads about it on Mastodon even ask for clarifications on where the limits etc were intended to be were immediately attacked and shut down in a black and white way... It was very clear where it was going to go and there was zero nuance to the discussion. The "community" shouted out anybody who would have voted against this.

I got ready to pull my project the moment I saw all that going down, and just waited to pull the trigger til the day it passed.

It's their right to narrow their definition of community on this basis. I also think the way they did it is crude, lacks nuance, and was executed poorly.

I'm sure my project probably would not have fallen afoul of their judgements. I hosted my own CI in part because I didn't want to suck up their resources. I was by no means producing "slop" -- I'm a software engineer with a 30 year career and capable of engineering judgement. I'm also long time open source user and contributor, an advocate of copyleft licensing, have my own critical opinions about aspects of LLM usage, and wanted off GH because I saw a lot of ... evil.. there and wanted to not be reliant on American infrastructure among other things.

But... I like probably the majority of authors of large packages these days, use AI tooling as do my contributors. And parts of my project have hooks to use open weight models, and provide MCP etc. hooks, and so on.

Having seen the type of discussion both on the PR and on Mastodon, I felt no desire to have these particular people holding open judgement over me and my project. [Aside: I'm fairly certain someone has gone through the PR that proposed the ban and removed egregious comments ... there are some comments missing that were formerly there, wish I had archived them]

Take the comments on this Mastodon thread: https://wandering.shop/@silvermoon82/116964029691087138 "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 of trying to honor the request in good faith. It's a bad look." "Opening your conversation with a group by saying "well I'll get to violate your group's values a _little_, right?" does not project the mentality of someone who wants to collaborate in good faith."

Comparing AI usage or questions about it to rape culture or violating consent is absolutely repulsive and trivializes the latter and exaggerates the former.

Or making analogies to Claude Code users being NAZIs? "@piggo @tante I see such a rule as being similar to the "no Nazis" rule. It works by Nazi sympathizers self-identifying by arguing about the rule."

Pre-defining an in-group or out-group based on how contaminated they are by the tools they use... I'm sorry, it's ridiculous. And not in the slightest "democratic" even if it holds a formal vote.

It's possible that nuance would prevail when the people sitting in judgement over things happened to look at my project. The actual public blog post seems going out of its way to provide a bit of "don't worry" ... but none of that was provided before. And I felt no need to be under that microscope.

... and so then the flood of "good riddance, so glad we got rid of people like you" comments... and people ritually going through my other comments to downvote me, blah blah. It's all the hallmarks of an angry echo chamber.

I posted this elsewhere about the kind of un-dialectical purity-of-essence thinking I saw on display:

[I fear] Blunt purity tests administered by people with reductionist and categorical thinking.

The reality is that even tools produced by concentrated capital and mass appropriation can also increase the productive capacity of a small free-software project whose code remains available under copyleft. They're not "infected" and contagious. They're tools.

They can deskill and dispossess workers; they can extend what a particular worker is able to make. Which tendency dominates, under what conditions, and to whose benefit are material questions.

"AI bad" is not an answer to them, any more than tech-bro "innovation good" is.

I couldn't care less about if AI was used to develop software, if it does what it is supposed to do, and if it is secure. Bad software can be produced with or without AI, so ultimately it is up to _you_ to vet the software you use if you don't pay anything for it.

As the other commenter said, they didn't change their values and target.

Also, these changes are enacted by members of the e.V. Nobody is forcing them to do something. It's all public and transparent.

In the blog post they complain about AI-assisted projects being too polished, using CI resources even though it's a one-man project with zero users. (Reasons they don't give for banning it in the TOS)

So, what's the rule exactly? Can I set up release builds on my one-man project or not? What about when the clearly vibe-coded project does it, do I report them? Does everyone just remember to not check in their AGENTS.md when pushing to codeberg?

I think things should just cost money. Far better than a nonsensical honor system around LLMs which has the obvious outcome of hiding LLM use.

That said, they can foster what ever environment they want. I think it's just a regressive self-limiting view that tries to pretend like the world isn't changing with rules that have bad downstream outcomes, as opposed to a platform that accepts reality and figures out what to do from there. And I find that disappointing.

I would hope so, that split would be a natural parting of the communities.

My pessimism tells me that the more any community rejects LLM and polices against generated output, the heavier they would be crawled. Which means that proLLM community by nature puts pressure on all antiLLM infrastructure – an asymmetrical problem, where other people pay for your choice.

My optimism, on the other hand, tells me that after bubble pop, hopefully, far less people would have money to feed aimless crawl results into machine learning algorithm in hopes of slight improvements.

Nobody wants to admit that we're going to have to go back to personal, verified relationships (it's who you know, not what you do) to fix it, unless we come up with something new.

Same problem with Eternal September - there was an "artificial" gateway that is now gone, but the need for some form of gateway still exists.

That's what these replies sound like to me.

The changes are more nuanced. It's not banning AI assisted coding. It's banning purely and mostly vibe-coded projects. If you're using LLM/AI assistance responsibly, you're on the clear.

There's nuance, and Codeberg guys understand it, AFAICS.

To quote the person who shared the news (tante): No, assistive use is not prohibited (ref: https://tldr.nettime.org/@tante/116963072821111167).

Signed, a developer who doesn't use LLMs.

I think I've avoided all of the LLM debate thus far, but I figure that some of my actual positions probably ought to be represented in this discussion instead of shadow-boxing.

I hate LLMs because I've had to sink a lot of hours into defending services and content that I host for myself or for others from companies that couldn't be bothered to write polite crawlers. This entirely unnecessary problem has contributed to some friction between me and a few clients as I try desperately to feather the pedal on traffic. This has subsided somewhat recently but the pain of it is still fresh.

I hate LLMs because they have taken a lot of goodwill and free labor from the creative community and turned it into a product. This isn't a new problem, it's been a point of sometimes rancorous argument in open source for decades, but this is another round of that old argument on what we owe or don't owe the people who donate labor and creativity to the commons.

I hate LLMs because I don't think Sam Altman or most of his social circle are good people and I don't want to give them more wealth and power. I believe Sam Altman is very comfortable enriching himself at the expense of humanity, and I want to still have some hope for the future of humanity. This position requires me to do whatever I can to deny any of my resources to Altman and his ilk, and to help foster the efforts of other people who want to do the same. To that end, I immediately support any protectionist efforts in the anti-LLM crowd.

I hate LLMs because they have inverted the effort it takes to generate some content versus consuming and considering that content. I am being drowned in a sea of garbage created by people in professional contexts who hand a few sparse notes to an LLM and ask it to generate a "professional email" or a "blog post" or a "technical document", and the quality on the overwhelming majority of this is terrible. It is having a severe and direct adverse effect on my ability to do work.

I hate LLMs because, after quietly observing differences between people who are at the far end of pro-LLM versus those at the far end of anti-LLM, I believe there's a consistent pattern of cognitive decline in the pro-LLM folks. I acknowledge this could just be me observing my own bias, but some literature is beginning to appear supporting it.

I hate LLMs because I love authenticity and creativity and constructive human endeavors, and LLMs are eating away at all of these and producing a homogeneous mass of superficial probabilistic crud. I have serious concerns about the future of art, creativity, and culture. They have been ever-changing and large parts of modern culture would be unrecognizable to someone 200 years ago, so this is more of a wait-and-see level of concern than a Big Hate, but so far, the Magic 8-Ball says, "Outlook not so good".

I hate LLMs because I'm strongly opposed to the idea that a few commercial companies, of whose finances I am deeply suspicious, should be made a required dependency in software development. This is an insane proposal to me. Even accounting for all of the upsides to LLM-driven development -- and I've followed all of that news just as much as all the negative takes -- it's nuts to me that there aren't more people worried about what this could mean for the future of software and technology. But, then again, I started my career during the height of Microsoft's domination of tech, so maybe that was formative for me.

I hate LLMs because I care about the environment that makes our existence possible and it's insane to me that so much of the tech sector suddenly stopped giving a shit about that. How can we, as a community, talk about the existential risk of climate change or the benefits of adopting renewable energy or cheer the development of ever-more-efficient power consumption while we also create a huge forcing function to convert as much electrical energy into thermal energy as possible? It's as if, practically overnight, everyone went from, "we need to do everything we can to reduce our demands on the environment or we're cooked" to "oooh, shiny new toy, and it only ruins everything around it, cool!"

I hate LLMs because I have been a hobbyist archivist for over a decade and a home computing enthusiast since the mid-1980s and right now I can't afford to buy a badly-needed hard drive or RAM or build out a new machine to even maybe experiment with an LLM in my own workshop because voodoo financing by everyone in the LLM ecosystem has totally wrecked the hobbyist computing economy, and there's no relief in sight.

I hate LLMs because I strongly suspect that the future they want is one of subscription computing and I will retreat back to retro computing before I go willingly into that long moonless night.

I hate LLMs because I am under enormous pressure, from many different angles, to also use them. I'm being asked -- required, in some cases -- to ignore all of my concerns about them and use them anyway because everyone else does and "obviously" they are the future. Because, somehow, all of my positions against LLMs make me unreasonable and a less valuable member of society.

LLMs could have been done in so many ways that I would have gladly and enthusiastically jumped right into. They are a really neat technology! I would love to be experimenting with them and playing with them and finding all the right ways to balance their benefits against their risks. But, I can't do that, because the way they've been developed requires me to set aside too many of the above concerns to be able to adopt them at all.

If I'm ever able to build a reasonable enough home system for the purpose, I might be able to, one day, change all the above to "I hate commercial LLMs...", but I have no idea right now how far away that day is, or if it will ever come. And, even that scenario would likely be a Faustian bargain, as it's likely that I'd be using open weights that were created under most of the same conditions as my concerns above.

More like:

> You are creating software using a tool incurring massive risks and costs for the rest of us even though we don't use it ourselves, we don't want you here

.

> plenty of people are using open offline models to code

…that needed to be trained and required siphoning the web too.

Their comparison was to a no-Nazis rule, not to Nazis. That comparison works. Only vibecoders argue about the intricacies of a no-vibecoding rule, just like only Nazis argue about the intricacies of a no-Nazis rule. They aren't saying vibecoders are Nazis, they're saying both vibecoders and Nazis are dishonest and try to find loopholes in the rules and accidentally identify themselves by doing that. The people who argue about age of consent also do that, which is why the person mentioned rape.

The LLM stuff is being gatekept because the people inside the gate care, and the people bringing the LLM code don't.

I drive a manual car too, and I get upset when someone who doesn't care about where they're putting their car, let alone the transmission, endangers me on the road. They're apathetic.

I work with people who have fully adopted claude in their work flows. They don't care about the code they push. They generate, prune, generate, prune in 10kloc increments. They're apathetic to others who might need to use this code and expect some kind of consistent architecture/interface. Its exhausting to deal with yet they love to say "I did this". I respect someone who tells me "I slopped this out" more, as they respect me enough to set expectations.

I think if you're trying to build a community of people who care, you must defend against those who are apathetic, or else they'll bring the whole community down.

This isn't to say all LLM users don't care about their work, but that there are far more people who are happy to push slop and take credit than the reverse. To carefully screen those people brings us back to the original complaint, LLMs turn programmers into paperwork drones. Attempting to screen these types of users takes away even more time from the purpose of the community.

Some of the people shoveling LLM slop seem to miss that point.

No, they don't want cars on their path, because cars would be harmful to the environment they're trying to foster.

I'm not asking you to justify your choices. What I'm saying is that you sound like you're deliberately ignoring what other people think as a precondition to justify your choices to yourself.

I hate LLMs because their pushers are hurrying us into the next financial crisis, which will impoverish another generation.

I hate LLMs because they have captured pretty much all R&D investment when we have far more important and urgent existential problems to solve. The world is literally burning in front of us, but no time for that because an even bigger model might make 0.03% less mistakes.

Do LLM companies give back to the community?

> I'm going to open source my software so the world can use it for whatever they want!

Well, no, it's rarely "for whatever they want". Most open source licenses require attribution, and copyleft licenses require sharing any derivative work under the same license under some conditions. The terms of the licenses open source developer matter and are not there just to look pretty.

This idea that free software is released under no conditions needs to die. The few restrictions open source developers want for their code need to be respected!

And yes, I'm kinda mad the few lines of code I released to the world probably helped those despicable companies to train their despicable artifacts. We couldn't have possibly anticipated that this was coming, but now we know, and indeed the question of releasing publicly at all should be reconsidered. At the same time, we can't always stop doing anything that has bad consequences because otherwise we stop doing anything. So yes, I might both continue publishing free software and be mad at the same time. Any objection?

I'll move on now.

I think you are correct, is not not really an LLM problem as much as its a person problem.

But there doesn't seem to be a good way to fix this. If anything LLMs just expose someone's integrity? I don't know, its a hard answer. Some people use LLMs just because they are translating languages.

How do you prove "work" or "knowledge?"