Hahahahaaaa hell yeah
this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2026
456 points (98.5% liked)
Technology
86707 readers
3516 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(7 replies)
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(17 replies)
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 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.
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
Just use that cat girl captcha thing, every other FOSS site uses, and the problem is solved.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
Just one problem with that: Every piece of work - code or otherwise, made by a human or not - may violate copyright law. There really is no way to know without actually checking against all other works (which you can't because you don't have access to all of them).
What GitHub does is what a sane person would do: React to claims. They just assume that what they get uploaded isn't violating copyright until someone claims otherwise. And as it is literally impossible to actually know, that is the only sane way to approach this problem apart from just not hosting other people's stuff at all.
load more comments
(8 replies)
load more comments
(7 replies)
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
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.
What? The point I was trying to make is that AI generated content is going to be treated as CC licensed. It is difficult to incorporate under other FOSS projects. Mostly considering that it doesn't exactly distinguish between code, library, binary and patents. It's simplier to avoid it altogether if your primary mission is FOSS
Considering your comment about verification of authorship, it's likely to be treated the same as it is now. You are the author, unless proven otherwise. And you are right. Even if you are the author and wrote every single code yourself, you can infringe on someones paten
load more comments
(2 replies)
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.
Let's be real here: Most future projects will be mostly written by AI.
Sure, the good ones will have proper human QA. But Claude Code is so much faster at writing and rewriting surprisingly good code, that ignoring it is just like ignoring IDEs was a decade ago.
You can still write code without AI, syntax highlighting, code-suggestions, documentation tooltips, inspections, and fully integrated version control. But all these tools legitimately make software development easier.
Let's be real here, the concerns about what the copyright is of code that's produced by AI is still sort of in the air, especially for a site that wants to host content from across the globe. Codeberg picking its battles and not wanting to deal with that for now seems reasonable.
Let's be real here, the ethical concerns over LLM use far outweigh any copyright concerns and are the real reason people should refrain from using them in any way, shape, or form.
Yeah like whether it's stolen or not. Whether it's a copyright violation. Oh wait.
Was that a comeback? I think we're agreeing with each other here. It does matter if stuff is stolen, which all LLM generated stuff is. I was referring more to the environmental impacts and all, because I'm sick of ppl talking about copyright as if that's what makes LLMs suck. Even if it was legal under copyright law, it'd still be awful on all fronts.
Regardless of that, it still fails to address the very legitimate copyright concerns.
People still ignore IDEs. In fact, in certain circles, it is seen as a badge of honor to use Vim or Emacs instead of some modern solution.
load more comments
(11 replies)
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!
Like anyone who's offended by this isn't already slopping for Microsoft's GitHub.
view more: next ›