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.
I have the same feeling with SourceHut which bans projects related to crypto money. I think bitcoins is a stupid idea, but knowing that the owner of the site can ban you because of the stupid idea of the day is a very wrong idea.
I mean the host can always remove your repo. We’ll see how they handle it; but I would assume it won’t be without care. But yet another reason to host your own as well.
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.
And how do they know it’s violating copyright law?
What
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!
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.
Yeah but I also get it as a thing to put down, just in case you need to mass-ban thousands of clearly-AI-generated projects. You can then just point to this ToS.
Define clearly
I think a lot of the time with these things is not really about filtering every single offending project but stablishing a legal precedent to remove a project the moment it is found to be violating the rules.
Yeah, saying outright that you can't gives them the ability to remove a problematic project without issue. Otherwise, GiganticProject, that prints "hello world" and is used by Microsoft, which is a million lines of code with 100,000 lines committed every day can be removed without having to deal with Microsoft's lawyers.
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.
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.
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.
And: false positives? How much fun is it to go to clone your repo and find it locked because something (probably an AI algorithm) decided your project was "vibe coded"?
Don't ask me. I have nothing to do with Codeberg and I'm not involved in the process itself, I'm just speculating. I would assume that if they're against hosting AI projects they won't try to hunt for them using AI screening and stick to a honour system + reporting instead but I know nothing about Codeberg's inner workings to say for certain.
There will probably be more info on that once the official announcement drops so I guess we'll see.
Yeah that is a good way to frame it. Makes sense. It does say something about their ethos.
It'll also be a great way to take down projects you don't like. Just accuse them of witchcraft.
they could already take down any projects they didn't like. it's their service after all
Good thing we have pro-AI platforms like GitHub that would never arbitrarily remove projects... Right?? Right???
Because GitHub arbitrarily removes projects it's okay if Codeberg does too? "They're the same as GitHub" is not actually a great point in their favor.
Issue Report: Project turned me into a newt.
based. So glad I moved there recently.
What's an LLM-extrusion?
Something extruded from an LLM?
Ah, LLM-generated code
Based
Nice one!!
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
