It's claimed that @Codeberg has (will?) ban projects that are developed partly using LLM tools.
Is that correct? Then I'll have to take my donations and leave.
It's claimed that @Codeberg has (will?) ban projects that are developed partly using LLM tools.
Is that correct? Then I'll have to take my donations and leave.
Replying to @menelion@dragonscave.space
Replying to @pvagner@fedi.ml
@pvagner @Codeberg @troed Sorry but "a friendly support" as an accessible CAPTCHA alternative is absolutely not an option in 2026. there are audio captchas, math captchas, checkbox based captchas, captchas where you have to pick the correct sound (like "Select which of the three is a cat meowing"), something I definitely forgot — and "contact support to register" is the most humiliating and discriminating option you can ever imagine. It implies human intervention, so it's not #Accessibility, it's a crutch. And I'm not even talking about LLM here.
Replying to @menelion@dragonscave.space
Replying to @pvagner@fedi.ml
@pvagner Sorry again, but I don't care about anything except for #Accessibility. I'm blind and I spend too much time fighting inaccessible solutions.
Replying to @miki@dragonscave.space
@miki @pvagner Earlier I was resenting something like culpability because I had to tear myself in two between moral and practical. Now I'm absolutely 150% calm: I'm deprived of a basic sense, I need special requirements for me to work and live my full life, so #Accessibility is the only thing I care of. If a company preaches so-called "inclusion" and "diversity" and is super aware of people's pronouns, allows to select a gender from a list of fourteen items, has a carbon footprint on each page and writes long posts about why AI and "big tech" are evil, but absolutely doesn't give a flying F about me and my needs, I don't care how moral this company is, sorry for being harsh.
Replying to @miki@dragonscave.space
Platforms which consider themselves moral stewards tend to keep making moral decisions, and it's almost inevitable that they'll eventually make one that you heavily disagree with.
There are two problems with that:
First is simple: resources are limited and for developers of Forgejo it could not only be out of scope, but even out of their awareness.
Example of the second option is LLM usage rules some project introduce. There are a lot of controversy in this matter and despite some people claiming that it's "rather obvious that %insert_their_opinion_here%", every argument they'll give you (if they bother to) most likely will have opposing arguments. And they won't be interested in a productive discussion. They'll most likely just want to shove the thing they don't like under the rug and feel good about it.
And if this thread would be a bit more popular, I'd be ready to bet on "there's no moral AI usage" comment appearing under my comment which would've been a good proof of what I'm talking about.
P.S. A better example of trying to think about the issue is SFC recommendations:
https://sfconservancy.org/llm-gen-ai/llm-backed-generative-ai-recommendations.html
Although I think that they leaned a bit more into the "anti-AI" movement, they shown consideration for both sides and tried to achieve something productive and inclusive. This deserves respect.
Replying to @pvagner@fedi.ml
These two items at the very bottom of the list meant that I removed all my (non-fork) presence on Codeberg yesterday since a few of my projects were directly affected:
* Projects written and maintained with heavy use of LLMs
* Projects heavily tied to the LLM ecosytem, e.g. LLM-written tools to ease LLM usage
It's pretty clear that the Codeberg ToU changes are simply a reflection of general AI-hatred with no actual insight into how LLM tools are used by FOSS maintainers nowadays behind it.
https://blog.codeberg.org/protecting-our-floss-commons-from-llms.html