submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by to c/technology@lemmy.world

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 87 points 1 month ago (11 children)

I get it, but determining and moreso verifying code is mostly generated is so intractable that this will likely not do anything practically. Well, perhaps it will discourage some disclosure.

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 60 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    I don't think anyone expects to catch every vibe coded project that might end up on the site. It's seems to be about nurturing specific direction for their community, giving admins clear rules on this issue and making their decisions easier in case they do find (or get a report about) a clearly AI "led" project.

    Even if vibe coder manages to stick around, they can't be sure their projects won't disappear at random due to the new rules. Might be enough to prevent some of them from using the site.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    giving admins clear rules on this issue and making their decisions

    The wording used is "mostly". Which is concerning, because "mostly" is anything but clear and leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 month ago

    It's a bit of a double edged sword. If you're too vague it's easy to allow for overreach but if you're too specific some people will try to skirt the line on technicalities. The final comment in the linked discussion promised to clarify this point in a future blog post so I guess anyone who might be affected by this change should keep an eye for that.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Exactly.

    Boosters: There's no way to enforce this! This rule shouldn't exist. You can't be 100% sure a project isn't slop. Keep the flood gates open.

    Reality: We also can't 100% enforce that people follow the speed limit, but we have speed limit laws. When we catch someone, we can point to the law. The mere existence of the law also acts as a small deterrent.

    Same with Codeberg. We can't 100% enforce the ban, but when we catch someone we'll be able to point to the rule and kick em out. And just seeing an "AI not welcome" sign on the wall will deter some amount of people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (4 replies)
  • load more comments (8 replies)
    [–] 66 points 1 month ago (10 children)

    A repo host that can remove your repo at any moment because someone can accuse your code of being “vibe coded” is not a repo host I’d trust. It shouldn’t matter how good, bad, or A.I. written your code is. It’s a hosting platform.

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    I mean, I agree with you, but there’s still room for abuse.

    Have you seen OpenClaw’s issues page?

    Vibe coders and AI agents are floating it with garbage, if they were to do that to Codeberg, it’ll probably run out of resources pretty quickly

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 18 points 1 month ago* (9 children)

    The main argument is due to copyright issues of LLM generated code. Github will happily remove repos which violated copyright laws or IP laws. It makes sense that Codeberg doesn’t want to host code which may be violating copyright law.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • load more comments (8 replies)
  • load more comments (7 replies)
    [–] 38 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Seeing how codeberg is FOSS only, I'm not suprised. Vibe-coded projects is a HUGE legal trap considering licensing. And seeing how it's based in Germany (notorious about siding with license owner against regular individuals) it only makes sense

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    How can I prove that I have ownership over code I wrote myself, and that it isn't copyrighted somewhere in the world? How can anyone prove that code is written by a human or AI (if you don't commit obvious AI harness files and folders)?

    Developers also "generate" code and are also "trained" on code they written as freelancers or employees for others which is potentially copyrighted. In that aspect just because it's written by hand, doesn't imply the writer has copyright on it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • [–] 37 points 1 month ago (8 children)

    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 (1) 3) and furthermore have little safeguards to ensure that they do not include harmful code (c.f. § 2 (1) 5).

    That feels like a reasonable middle ground. Allow some things with some AI written code, but don't allow stuff that is a majority of AI code.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    How on earth will they determine that though?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago (9 children)

    I can't see the future, but this all doesn't sound like an ideological "vibe code is bad, we don't allow it" but a "the copyright of vibe coded content is unclear across jurisdictions, we don't allow it." So I don't think it's something they'll say "hey, this looks vibe coded, deleted." Many projects self proclaim they're vibe coded. Many projects list every commit that is vibe coded. It seems likely they'll go after those projects instead.

    But yes, I'm not an oracle, and Codeberg could always heel turn and turn this into a witch hunt, but I don't think they've earned that reputation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • load more comments (9 replies)
  • load more comments (7 replies)
    [–] 32 points 1 month ago

    Hell yeah. Though I do always wonder if such entities mark themselves as targets for AI scraping. For instance, Wikipedia is also committed to banning slop articles. But that just means for any AI scraper it just becomes a reliable source of quality training data. So Wikipedia volunteers have to expend a lot of time and resources determining if something is slop and getting rid of it, all so that the slop trainers can come in and create the next version of the slop engine used to spam Wikipedia...

    Anyway... whatever. Good for Codeberg!

  • source
  • [–] 23 points 1 month ago

    Like anyone who's offended by this isn't already slopping for Microsoft's GitHub.

  • source
  • [–] 22 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    based. So glad I moved there recently.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 7 points 1 month ago
    [–] 6 points 1 month ago (7 children)
  • load more comments (6 replies)
    [–] 6 points 1 month ago

    Hahahahaaaa hell yeah

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Guess I'll pull all my stuff from Codeberg then, vibe coded or not.

    That's dangerous as hell, because there is no guarantee that your stuff is deleted for the wrong reason.

    It's their decision. But I dislike it.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›