I get it, but determining and moreso verifying code is mostly generated is so intractable that this will likely not do anything practically. Well, perhaps it will discourage some disclosure.
this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2026
285 points (97.3% liked)
Technology
86649 readers
2630 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I don't think anyone expects to catch every vibe coded project that might end up on the site. It's seems to be about nurturing specific direction for their community, giving admins clear rules on this issue and making their decisions easier in case they do find (or get a report about) a clearly AI "led" project.
Even if vibe coder manages to stick around, they can't be sure their projects won't disappear at random due to the new rules. Might be enough to prevent some of them from using the site.
Exactly.
Boosters: There's no way to enforce this! This rule shouldn't exist. You can't be 100% sure a project isn't slop. Keep the flood gates open.
Reality: We also can't 100% enforce that people follow the speed limit, but we have speed limit laws. When we catch someone, we can point to the law. The mere existence of the law also acts as a small deterrent.
Same with Codeberg. We can't 100% enforce the ban, but when we catch someone we'll be able to point to the rule and kick em out. And just seeing an "AI not welcome" sign on the wall will deter some amount of people.
load more comments
(1 replies)
giving admins clear rules on this issue and making their decisions
The wording used is "mostly". Which is concerning, because "mostly" is anything but clear and leaves a lot of room for interpretation.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
I think a lot of the time with these things is not really about filtering every single offending project but stablishing a legal precedent to remove a project the moment it is found to be violating the rules.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(18 replies)
7. You must not share projects that mostly consist of code written by "generative AI"-tools (including services such as Claude, OpenAI Codex). Such projects having an unclear copyright status (see requirements § 2 (1) 1 and § 2 (1) 3) and furthermore have little safeguards to ensure that they do not include harmful code (c.f. § 2 (1) 5).
That feels like a reasonable middle ground. Allow some things with some AI written code, but don't allow stuff that is a majority of AI code.
How on earth will they determine that though?
I can't see the future, but this all doesn't sound like an ideological "vibe code is bad, we don't allow it" but a "the copyright of vibe coded content is unclear across jurisdictions, we don't allow it." So I don't think it's something they'll say "hey, this looks vibe coded, deleted." Many projects self proclaim they're vibe coded. Many projects list every commit that is vibe coded. It seems likely they'll go after those projects instead.
But yes, I'm not an oracle, and Codeberg could always heel turn and turn this into a witch hunt, but I don't think they've earned that reputation.
load more comments
(9 replies)
load more comments
(7 replies)
A repo host that can remove your repo at any moment because someone can accuse your code of being “vibe coded” is not a repo host I’d trust. It shouldn’t matter how good, bad, or A.I. written your code is. It’s a hosting platform.
I mean, I agree with you, but there’s still room for abuse.
Have you seen OpenClaw’s issues page?
Vibe coders and AI agents are floating it with garbage, if they were to do that to Codeberg, it’ll probably run out of resources pretty quickly
How bad cou...
HOLY SHIT
load more comments
(1 replies)
The main argument is due to copyright issues of LLM generated code. Github will happily remove repos which violated copyright laws. It makes sense that Codeberg doesn’t want to host code which may be violating copyright law.
load more comments
(8 replies)
I mean the host can always remove your repo. We’ll see how they handle it; but I would assume it won’t be without care. But yet another reason to host your own as well.
load more comments
(7 replies)
Seeing how codeberg is FOSS only, I'm not suprised. Vibe-coded projects is a HUGE legal trap considering licensing. And seeing how it's based in Germany (notorious about siding with license owner against regular individuals) it only makes sense
How can I prove that I have ownership over code I wrote myself, and that it isn't copyrighted somewhere in the world? How can anyone prove that code is written by a human or AI (if you don't commit obvious AI harness files and folders)?
Developers also "generate" code and are also "trained" on code they written as freelancers or employees for others which is potentially copyrighted. In that aspect just because it's written by hand, doesn't imply the writer has copyright on it.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Hell yeah. Though I do always wonder if such entities mark themselves as targets for AI scraping. For instance, Wikipedia is also committed to banning slop articles. But that just means for any AI scraper it just becomes a reliable source of quality training data. So Wikipedia volunteers have to expend a lot of time and resources determining if something is slop and getting rid of it, all so that the slop trainers can come in and create the next version of the slop engine used to spam Wikipedia...
Anyway... whatever. Good for Codeberg!
Like anyone who's offended by this isn't already slopping for Microsoft's GitHub.
Hahahahaaaa hell yeah
Guess I'll need a new host for some of my recent repos. Oh well. Nothing that I haven't dealt with for other reasons (with GitHub and Bitbucket).
I'm not sure if these tools will stick around, but if they do I'm not sure you'll be able to find anyone that isn't using them in a couple of years. I hate it but it does turn out that dropping a trillion dollars on automating writing software has yielded results.
Edit: Update: Moved my personal slopjects over to gitlab which is fully embracing the slop.
I get that some people are completely against LLM assisted coding. I'm still with you guys in spirit, but if these things stick around in their current quality (which is honestly a load bearing if) I just don't see a way to continue working in the software industry and meeting expectations without using them.
view more: next ›