atzanteol

Is this useful? They’re started but doing absolutely nothing. Who cares? You need to plan for max usage not idle.

My forgejo instance running right now is using 1070MiB. That’s way off your 173MB.

You know what’s funny? Codeberg has said nothing about being concerned about liability.

Their terms service change simply mentions that they require certain licenses and that they have concern over the licensing of LLM meeting that standard.

Event their follow up communication says absolutely nothing of liability.

“It’s not…”

“There are probably law firms…”

This is wild unfounded speculation.

P2P torrent users are nothing like a code hosting platform. 🤣

As has been said - their liability for llm code is no different from hosting any other code. They already have the same risk. And that is typically that they must respond to take-down notices which they are already doing.

They are already dealing with all of the problems they would be dealing with with llm code.

It’s just code puritanism wrapped in pseudo legal justification. Own it.

This hasn’t happened. It’s a fantasy.

Maybe you don’t understand copyright?

Yeah - it’s well known that scripts to automate doing bad things did not exist before llms.

People have tried using forges to host explicitly illegal material all the time. Not just “this may be a copyright issue perhaps maybe”.

The copyright complaint is a fig leaf to hide their shame.

They also outright banned cryptocurrency code with no “copyright fig leaf” apologia.

It’s code puritanism plain and simple. “We don’t like these things so we’re banning them.”

People can upload code that violates copyright too. No llm required.

So if that is the concern have a rule about not violating copyright (which they may already have). And there is likely already a process for handling that.

This is the problem I have with the situation: the solution chosen (banning llm code) doesn’t really address the concerns they’ve raised directly. It’s just apologetics to make it sound like it’s reason-based rather than “we don’t like it”.

It’s their platform, they can do what they want, but let’s not pretend it’s not code-puritanism.

At the very least it’s a mistake to say the law is “settled” at all. It’s barely been tested.

Huh. I mostly read people moralizing the use of AI and wanting to slap a scarlet AI on anyone who uses it while derisively using the terms “slop” and “vibe” to poison the well.

The self-hosted crowd thinks reverse proxies protect you from the Internet. Don’t expect too much of them.