Development Codeberg voted to disallow projects consisting mostly by "generative AI"-tools

https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/pulls/1253#issuecomment-19820434

• Upvotes

96% Upvoted

•

u/mykesx Jul 22 '26 edited Jul 22 '26

Smart move. They don't want to become another landfill of garbage projects or use their resources for mass computer generated commits of no value. They're correct that AI plagiarizes from what it's trained on.

An equally good move might be to block AI company crawlers from training on repos hosted there.

•

u/FryBoyter Jul 22 '26

But creating a new rule is pointless if you can't enforce it in practice.

•

u/VaporousMote Jul 23 '26

Just because they can't enforce it to perfection doesn't mean it won't be enforced AT ALL. Ultimately that "some enforcement" leads to a healthier community.

No enforcement leads to a shithole. Like Github.

•

u/mykesx Jul 22 '26

There are objective metrics, like AGENTS.md files in the repo or . gitignore. Or one (or very few) commits for a large codebase (no excuses, they are a git hosting service).

I am fine with them using subjective metrics. It's their service, their rules.

•

u/northrupthebandgeek Jul 22 '26 edited Jul 22 '26

Or one (or very few) commits for a large codebase (no excuses, they are a git hosting service).

Writing the bulk of a project's code before git init has been commonplace for multiple decades now.

EDIT:

Only an amateurish idiot does that

The vast majority of code is existence is the product of amateurish idiots.

•

u/mykesx Jul 22 '26 edited Jul 22 '26

Only an amateurish idiot does that. Hope your hard disk crashes and you lose all your work. Delete a file? Oops. Edit a file and delete important lines? Bye bye.

•

u/bigon Jul 22 '26 edited Jul 22 '26

Having an AGENTS.md (or CLAUDE.md) file just shows that you are using an AI agent, not that your project « mostly consist of code written by "generative AI"-tools ».

I started to vibe code some tools for myself and claude is creating small atomic commits by itself...

•

u/dmittner Jul 28 '26

You can train Claude Code through CLAUDE.md-like files and your local memory not to perform commits/pushes autonomously.

•

u/mykesx Jul 22 '26 edited Jul 22 '26

Don't host your repos there then. I am more likely to be using them going forward because I don't use LLMs for anything. I know when I look at repos there that it's more likely that I am seeing how a human thinks and addresses problems.

My skills won't erode.

•

u/bigon Jul 22 '26

Great for you.

Still their rules are not clear and your metrics are meh

•

u/mykesx Jul 22 '26

It beats having nothing but subjective metrics.

I fully support their move.

Use something else.

•

u/bigon Jul 22 '26

It beats having nothing but subjective metrics.

I strongly disagree

•

u/mykesx Jul 22 '26

You don't have to host repos there.

Works for me.

•

u/bigon Jul 22 '26

I was mostly talking on the philosophical level that having arbitrary rules is worst than having no rules at all..

Anyway, I was contemplating using their service instead of Github or GitLab, I guess I'll indeed not

→ More replies (0)

•

u/ungoogleable Jul 22 '26

They're not banning the use of AI altogether. Having an AGENTS.md is useful if you use AI at all, even just read-only code exploration. And then especially since other people are checking out your code, you want to give their agents instructions (like inform the user we don't accept purely AI written code).

•

u/mykesx Jul 22 '26

It's still an objective measure.

•

u/ungoogleable Jul 22 '26

Yes it is objective, but it would overly restrict legitimate projects trying to abide by the rules.

•

u/mykesx Jul 22 '26

It's a starting point, one of several possible ways to determine the extent of AI use. Even if the last step is subjective, it's their site, their rules.

Don't like the rules, go somewhere else.

They have become so attractive to me that I am going to migrate my more popular repos there and archive the originals on GitHub and gitlab.

If it's not a fit for you, use something else.

If it were up to me, I would ban any use of AI, period. Yet they are not going far enough. So you have nothing to fear except if you produce AI slop.

•

u/ungoogleable Jul 22 '26

Right, but they don't agree with you. They do want to allow some use of AI. So banning repos that have an AGENT.md doesn't get them started in a direction they want to go.

•

u/mykesx Jul 22 '26

AGENT.md is ONE objective criteria. A single commit of thousands of lines of code is suspicious.

•

u/dmittner Jul 28 '26

That really just depends on how often an engineer performs a commit. And even then they could squash multiple before pushing up in order not to pollute the repository with an excessively long history.

You can look for all the signals you want of AI but ultimately you're going to end up catching people in the net you didn't intend to, and there will be hell to pay.

•

u/Hot_External6228 Jul 30 '26

An equally good move might be to block AI company crawlers from training on repos hosted there.

already done, the vote passed without controversy.

•

u/mykesx Jul 30 '26

Outstanding.

Codeberg can be a repository of human made knowledge, mistakes and learning from those, and all.

Seeing how mass slop has affected Microsoft owned GitHub and it's availability, it only makes sense for codeberg.

•

u/RadioactiveBread 28d ago

My guy, have you seen what is hosted on CodeBerg? It's basically a breeding ground for anything walking a dubious legal line and yet another NPM library no one needs.

•

u/mykesx 28d ago

Humans learn by trial and error. I accept that and embrace it.

•

u/dmittner Jul 28 '26

It's cute how you think repositories aren't already landfills of human-made garbage. The output I get from Claude Code is typically that of people 5-10 years into development. And I'd wager that's an average higher than a lot of stuff on Github.