Comment by mitxela
2 days ago
Codeberg does not forbid AI-generated code. It forbids AI-generated projects. You would know this if you read the policy.
2 days ago
Codeberg does not forbid AI-generated code. It forbids AI-generated projects. You would know this if you read the policy.
The specific language is:
> projects that mostly consist of code written by "generative AI"-tools
And "mostly" here seems egregiously undefined to me
https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/commit/96fac426a32d1ba91ff...
implies for me >50% - instead of >0% as suggested by @ricardobeat
The hardest part of policy isn't coming up with smart policy, it's figuring out where and how to draw the lines.
As much as I hate vibe-coded "slop". I feel like this is idiotic. I and most good engs with decades of experience do use AI now to type nearly all the actual "code", but we read EVERY SINGLE line, always fix and rework every feature before a commit to make it clean, optimized, and de-slopified.
But still, we wouldn't be allowed to use codeberg because "generative ai" was used significantly for most lines of code?
AFAICT they are dealing with resource exhaustion from slopcoding agents hammering them with copycat garbage. It's existential. If you use AI to help you thoughtfully write code, review it with humans, and respect their service, I don't think they will have a problem with you.
If it's good, will they ever find out?
1 reply →
What do you think "mostly" could mean?
Take a peek at https://codeberg.org/DAWO/DAWO-Core/commits/branch/main
Is this "mostly developed with AI" in your opinion? Not to mention the fact the policy leaves it open to interpretation is part of the problem...
> And "mostly" here seems egregiously undefined to me
and yet we seem to be convinced that English is the appropriate spec language of the modern times