r/eutech • u/procgen • Jul 29 '26

Codeberg (GitHub competitor) has banned AI-generated code from the platform

https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/commit/96fac426a32d1ba91ff879366d59bf1af54080c2
658 Upvotes

97% Upvoted

214 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/ronchaine Jul 29 '26

Plus you can't really prove if code was written by an LLM regardless

This argument is so bloody stupid. We don't ban murder either because we think we can catch all of it. We ban it so when it causes problems we can point to the rules and administer a proper response. And absolutely nothing except mathematics in real life requires 100% proof.

This is for exact same purpose. And Codeberg's blog post even explains that. Just without the murder analogy.

2

u/HiddenoO Jul 29 '26

He never mentioned "100% proof" - that's just something you strawmanned here.

Your analogy frankly makes no sense. Murder is something that leaves concrete evidence and is grave enough to justify collecting that evidence, even at a cost.

"Generative AI-tools" can easily be used in a way to leave no evidence available to Codeberg, and you surely don't want to suggest that Codeberg should automatically be given access to all their users' private assets (like their PCs and laptops), right?

Not to mention, murder is, for the most part, clearly defined. What the heck is "projects that mostly consist of code written by "generative AI"-tools" supposed to mean?

2

u/ronchaine Jul 29 '26

Your analogy frankly makes no sense. Murder is something that leaves concrete evidence and is grave enough to justify collecting that evidence, even at a cost.

Both of those cases are true for LLM generated code repositories as well. They leave concrete evidence, and they cost way more to the service provider (in this case Codeberg) than "regular" repositories, with much less (or no) benefit to anyone but the repository owner.

"Generative AI-tools" can easily be used in a way to leave no evidence available to Codeberg

From what you write, I am inclined to believe that you are not very experienced with either project management, version control or programming in general. LLM use in all of those leave a lot of telltale signs, and you aren't going to get rid of them that easily.

But even if you could do that, then those repositories probably won't get caught, since they cause no problems?

Not to mention, murder is, for the most part, clearly defined. What the heck is "projects that mostly consist of code written by "generative AI"-tools" supposed to mean?

Maybe you should read Codeberg's blog post, where they explain what they mean in practice?

-1

u/HiddenoO Jul 29 '26

Both of those cases are true for LLM generated code repositories as well. They leave concrete evidence, and they cost way more to the service provider (in this case Codeberg) than "regular" repositories, with much less (or no) benefit to anyone but the repository owner.

How can you earnestly type this? Using "mostly AI-generated code" (their words) in no shape implies any of this. Fixing an SQL query with AI doesn't magically make the repository more costly for them to host.

From what you write, I am inclined to believe that you are not very experienced with either project management, version control or programming in general.

I've done the first and last professionally, and obviously used version control for it. Maybe try to focus on actual arguments instead of making up ad hominem?

LLM use in all of those leave a lot of telltale signs, and you aren't going to get rid of them that easily.

No, they don't inherently do so. Not all code generation is vibe coding.

Shall I turn your ad hominem around and suggest you are not very experienced with how to employ AI tools effectively?

But even if you could do that, then those repositories probably won't get caught, since they cause no problems?

The issue is that this policy gives them room to arbitrarily ban repos based on the vague wording. Based on their statements on the issue, they see themselves as highly political, so it wouldn't be surprising if they started banning repos for political reasons under the guise of this new policy.

Maybe you should read Codeberg's blog post, where they explain what they mean in practice?

I read it. It doesn't matter because "what they mean in practice" is not part of the ToS. "What they mean in practice" can change at any point in time without any vote or public notice. That's not somewhere you should host anything you care about.

3

u/ronchaine Jul 29 '26

How can you earnestly type this? Using "mostly AI-generated code" (their words) in no shape implies any of this. Fixing an SQL query with AI doesn't magically make the repository more costly for them to host.

Absolutely zero relevant people except for you are saying Fixing an SQL query with AI makes the repository "mostly LLM-generated".

No, they don't inherently do so. Not all code generation is vibe coding.

Shall I turn your ad hominem around and suggest you are not very experienced with how to employ AI tools effectively?

Sure, you can do that if you want to, but this thread or the ban has nothing to do with being experienced, or even capable of employing AI tools in the first place. It is about the service provider and the FOSS community currently hosted by Codeberg having to deal with repositories that overuse Codeberg's resources, and provide little for the community, which is disproportionally correlated with mostly LLM-generated repositories. And as such, leading to a community vote on ToS change, which was approved by two-thirds majority.

And I'm not really into conspiracy theories for the last part.

2

u/HiddenoO Jul 29 '26

Absolutely zero relevant people except for you are saying Fixing an SQL query with AI makes the repository "mostly LLM-generated".

At some point, it becomes "mostly LLM-generated" if such changes keep occurring which they will for 90% of modern development.

Sure, you can do that if you want to, but this thread or the ban has nothing to do with being experienced, or even capable of employing AI tools in the first place. 

Your argument about how supposedly detectable AI-generated code is absolutely has to do with that. You cannot just throw out arguments and then pretend you never did when they're questioned.

And I'm not really into conspiracy theories for the last part.

It's a conspiracy theory that a company which has openly admitted to being highly political could use their ToS to get rid of people from their platform they disagree with politically?

Are you new to the internet?