Comment by addedGone

4 days ago

It isn't, I'm literally not allowed to host a project on it, knowing obviously it's 100% "LLM-made" nowadays, no modern softwares can be hosted on it, Bun can't be hosted on it (100% "AI" now), you don't find it ridiculous? The world is changing, they don't want to acknowledge it.

The cryptocurrency related projects ban is also insane knowing how much it has contributed to having greater crypto librairies, including all the newer zK stuff.

The entire planet is migrating towards AI coding, and Codeberg is going the opposite way, it's a sure way to die, let's speak about it in 2028 where I'm ready to bet that less than 0.1% of all software dev will be manually editing files.

To me, it seems that they can't manage their infrastructure properly cost wise and decide instead to punish the users for it.

8 comments

addedGone

Reply
ethin  4 days ago

No, I don't find it ridiculous:

1. You are not entitled to a website hosting your content. A website refusing to host you is not censorship in any form whatsoever.

2. I'm pretty positive they did this because of infrastructure reasons as a secondary reason to their mission. LLMs mean people can just pump out projects at light speed, and that costs money to both host and do things with on CI/CD. If you want that potentially to be lifted in the future, pay them so they are able to have that infrastructure.

inigyou  4 days ago

Just ask your AI to set up a website called Vibeberg for AI projects only. It should be really simple.

  • addedGone  3 days ago

    It has nothing to do with "vibe coding" in the sense you imply, you see the ARC-AGI, DeepSWE benchmarks and so-on, assume that will be 99.9% soon when we have Opus 9 which will be soon, which means in practice that most SWE are beaten by top models, which means that letting humans code will be more dangerous (and inferior) than letting models code, we are already close to that which is why we must change the way we work now, not the moment it comes.

    It's already dangerous today to not review codebases by top models, how do you think that will be in 2028?

    And yes, a simple combination of top models today in adversarial+loops... and only 20 subscriptions will do much better than Codeberg ($100K monthly token equivalent).

    But sure, Codeberg can remain alive for all the legacy stuff, but imo the mentality is quite backward.

    • ethin  3 days ago

      This comment is full of both a lot of hyperbole and theoretical outcomes that Idk even where to begin. There for one is no guarantee that Anthropic will remain around long enough for them to get to Opus 9 let alone a better model for one. The same could be said for OAI.

      And again, what is the problem with a platform wanting to not be flooded with a bunch of low-quality code that gets abandoned after it's done what the creator wanted it to do? I keep seeing this claim of these models being better than "most" developers but have yet to see any actual statistics cited to back up this claim which makes me think it's all just vibes.

      1 reply →