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.

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

As in obvious. Like they have model instructions and bots credited as authors on commits.

Congrats you made a mistake. Any contributor can make commits with ai bots credited into them, and it’s not displayed to the reviewer. Meaning that for just accepting a MR that looked good, you would get banned. Nothing is obvious

Nobody cares for your got’em logic, it just makes you look childish.

The child is the person who acts before thinking and without caring about the issues it will cause

The rule is for vibe coded projects. From the article:

If your work fits into these cases, it is unlikely that you are affected at all:

• Projects who have an active community that cares about and maintains the software
• Projects with a significant pre-LLM history
• Maintainers who unknowingly or willingly accepted LLM-generated contributions from other contributors, if your project otherwise does not involve the heavy use of LLMs

They don’t need a rule that can be run automatically because it’s a purely human operation that is trying to take a stand against the more pernicious effects of corporate LLMs.

Do you just disagree with this stance and are just trying to poke whatever hypothetical holes you can in their logic, or do you just want more rigorous definitions/rules?

From experience, content moderation works best when there is some flexibility in the rules, so people can talk it out and come to concessions together.

Carighan talked about “mass-banning”. This is what I opposed to

Aaaah, I see where your consternation comes from. Yeah I’m not a primary english speaker, I did not mean to imply “automated” with “mass banning”. I meant they clean up shop and get rid of vibe-coded shit, but “mass banning” for me would be anything from a hundred projects up, and that’s something human reviewers would easily clean up shop each day.

Obviously a rule that should not and cannot be defined “hard” should not be used for automated banning. At most for automated-selection-for-review.

Why? That’d not he what a company banning the projects would do, so why should it be done beforehand?

It’s exactly about having a hard cut-off, but for a softly defined offense.

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.

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.

The Codeberg team seems crazy solid, or so I feel. I have all my repos there except one which isn’t open source.

That’s good to know. Hopefully they’ll be able to come up with a decent solution that’ll fit their community well.

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.

Speed limits are binary and easily enforceable

It'll also be a great way to take down projects you don't like. Just accuse them of witchcraft.

Good thing we have pro-AI platforms like GitHub that would never arbitrarily remove projects… Right?? Right???

That’s just Facedeer, an infamous AI booster and concern troll.

A bad faith troll could claim any genuine rule against platform abuse could be turned into a witch hunt. Rules like “don’t upload giant files to overwhelm our servers” or, since I’m reminded of someone else who claims they’re labeled a witch, “don’t harass transgender people”…

The idea is probably to have an easy joker reason to randomly ban any repo which is for some otherwise hard to justify reason not wanted on the site. It’s a common corpo practice to have extra vague and impossible-to-disprove rules like that.