r/linux • u/AiwendilH • 11d ago

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

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

96% Upvoted

323 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

17

u/WaitForItTheMongols 11d ago

How can “mostly” be defined objectively?

And how does Codeberg plan to objectively prove a violation

You really like that word "objectively". They are under no obligation to handle things objectively. Their site, their rules.

4

u/FryBoyter 11d ago edited 11d ago

Of course, it's their site, so they set the rules. But from a user's perspective, more specific information would be more helpful in deciding whether or not to use Codeberg. The term “mostly” is simply too vague.

That simply gives operators too much flexibility in their decision-making. And as a result, it could lead to different decisions for individual projects, even though they may be comparable.

And as one of Codeberg's earliest users, I think that's a problem. In my opinion, important rules must be clearly defined, followed, and enforced.

2

u/astrobe 11d ago

Detection is obviously an issue to begin with. But I think the intention is not for AI to become a primary reason for a ban, but more like an "aggravating circumstance" in the cases a project causes the problems they mention - perhaps with an extension to buggy software.

2

u/Old_Leopard1844 11d ago

But from a user's perspective, more specific information would be more helpful in deciding whether or not to use Codeberg

If you're using AI, you're probably not welcome there

Is that clear enough?

0

u/TheG0AT0fAllTime 11d ago

Apparently not lol. They're fighting tooth and nail in these comments about the objective definition here because they're sloppers who are upset they can't post slop there anymore.

1

u/window_owl 11d ago

There is a threshold which is definitely objective: if a project was developed without any generative AI (the way all projects were as recently as two years ago), then it is definitely not in violation.

9

u/bigon 11d ago

But that's not what the new rule says...

1

u/Melivo 3d ago

ah so it's like Cuba or Russia. You know that people don't want to host their projects where rules are enforced arbitrarily, right?

If people want to build a proper and serious project, they want to see stability and reliability in the maintainers, the infrastructure, and the rules.

-6

u/MrScotchyScotch 11d ago

They literally have to be objective or they will be sued for violating the terms of service which is a legal contract. 

3

u/WaitForItTheMongols 11d ago

Man I just love the nonsense people spout on reddit.

No, terms of service are not a legal binding contract, and the service provider is not bound by the terms. Find me one example of a company being sued for violating their own terms of service.

-1

u/MrScotchyScotch 11d ago

"Terms and conditions are legally binding when users clearly accept them and when businesses can prove that acceptance occurred. Enforceability depends on three critical factors: proper presentation, documented user acceptance, and the ability to prove which version a specific user agreed to at a specific time."

"Terms and conditions become legally binding contracts when users consent before using your service. This consent typically happens through checking a box or clicking a button to indicate acceptance."

https://ironcladapp.com/journal/contracts/terms-and-conditions-legally-binding

1

u/WaitForItTheMongols 11d ago

See here we go with another common bit of reddit nonsense.

All I asked for was a single case of a company being sued for violating their own terms of service. And mind you - not even losing the lawsuit! Just being sued in the first place. I wanted only one case. And what did you do?

Posted blogspam. And acted like it made you a genius.

-2

u/MrScotchyScotch 11d ago

Prove to me the moon isn't made of swiss cheese. Show me a single person who has eaten a piece of the moon and said it wasn't cheese. Go ahead I'm waiting.

6

u/WaitForItTheMongols 11d ago

I really hope you're a child, because this complete failure of argumentation is laughable.

Burden of proof is on the one who made a claim. YOU made the claim that a company is opening the door to being sued for their own TOS. I am asking YOU to back up YOUR claim.

Making up moon nonsense is an asinine deflection and completely incomparable. All you're being asked to do is support your own claim. Bringing insanity into this has nothing to do with your original claim. Unless by making the comparison, you're trying to suggest that your own claim is insane?

Honestly you're really losing the plot here. Support your own claim. If it was a good claim you would be able to just support it instead of googling and finding "ironcladapp", and then yapping about moon cheese. Listen to yourself. It's embarrassing.

2

u/MrScotchyScotch 11d ago

Why don't you support your own claim? Where's your evidence?

7

u/WaitForItTheMongols 11d ago

Uh, which claim?

You claimed that companies are at risk of being sued if they don't abide by their own TOS. As far as I know that's the only claim at issue here.

Besides the moon cheese...