Protecting our FLOSS commons from LLMs

(blog.codeberg.org)

72 points | by acmnrs 9 hours ago

9 comments

  • endre 16 minutes ago
    thanks for addressing the source of the problems as `LLMs` and not AI in general.
  • TheChaplain 1 hour ago
    I don't really see a problem with this decision (or the one regarding crypto), they were voted on by the active members of Codeberg, simply a democratic outcome.
    • farfatched 1 hour ago
      +1. Membership is open. The vote was given to members.

      This is all reasonable.

      I will have to move my projects off Codeberg, but that's okay. We have incompatible views. No grudges.

    • zajio1am 8 minutes ago
      The fact that decision was democratic is independent from whether it is good and reasonable.

      Anti-homosexuality laws were also voted on democratically.

    • youre-wrong3 1 hour ago
      lol closed door voting is not democratic.
      • SiempreViernes 45 minutes ago
        Not being a US citizen* means I cannot vote in US elections, thus it is a closed door vote by your reckoning and so the US is not democratic. Did I get that right?

        *This is shorthand for me not being associated with the US in any way, but you are of course free to reply with all the edge cases that makes the point impossible to state briefly.

        • flir 15 minutes ago
          Always attack the analogy, never the argument.

          I see you've played "internet" before...

          • stuartjohnson12 8 minutes ago
            He did attack the argument - he argued reductio ad absurdum that classifying "democratic" as "open to everyone" wouldn't be a sensible definition, because the argument would set such a high bar for democracy that no state is democratic.

            The irony of this comment is that leaning back and snarkily accusing someone of "playing internet" is precisely the kind of disengagement you're complaining about.

      • falsemyrmidon 48 minutes ago
        Who do you think should be voting if not their active users?
      • not-kinsale-joe 37 minutes ago
        It is still democratic, what would be you preferred way to do it?
      • dijksterhuis 43 minutes ago
        “closed door” is a bit disingenuous considering any private individual codeberg user can apply to become an active voting member https://join.codeberg.org/
  • nylonstrung 30 minutes ago
    > To us, it seems ridiculous to see projects with a single developer and virtually no users consuming as much or even more resources than some of the largest community projects on Codeberg, which operate frugal with CI/CD and storage resources. We do not believe it is reasonable for Codeberg to invest our precious donation money into hosting of large ghost projects.

    This seems fully orthogonal to whether LLMs are used or not

  • BrenBarn 1 hour ago
    Kudos to them and others who take a principled stance against LLM crapola.
  • wongarsu 37 minutes ago
    I wonder how this turns out longer-term. Obviously more and more software development is moving to LLMs. But depending on how principled codeberg ends up about enforcing this, a project being on codeberg might end up as a strong signal that the project is not ai-slop (either made by hand, or at least by humans who care about the project)
  • Daffrin 17 minutes ago
    [flagged]
  • redsocksfan45 30 minutes ago
    [dead]
  • jaredcwhite 4 hours ago
    Huzzah! This is excellent news. Safe spaces and healthy communities are borne from enforcing strict moderation to keep the bad actors out. This is an important step forward for the platform.
    • bcye 3 hours ago
      The article literally says they intend to selectively enforce this rule and not be strict with it?
  • superdisk 50 minutes ago
    > Civic infrastructure, its users, and the environment suffer

    Larp detected. Also, is GitHub really so bad? I don't use any of the fancy features, I just push and pull code from it and it's basically never down for that. And if Github ultimately does die I can just point my repos at a new server and hit `git push`.