Why do "AI people", have this thing where they are simultaneously:
- proclaiming their thing to be inevitable and massive and a bulldozer of productivity;
- responding to any negative reaction like they are a persecuted group
It seems paradoxical to me. If your LLM-written project is so amazing, who cares about the critics?
Let them have their corner of the internet. There are plenty of other sites that will host your project.
Perhaps if you are a heavy codeberg user it is annoying to move onto Forgejo. But then again (and I say this without sarcasm) can't you get one of your agents to sort it out for you?
And also if AI is so great creating your own community or place to host stuff should be trivial. Zero effort really. So I really see no reason to co-opt existing place. As they are already making money with AI so hosting costs are really nothing either. So there is no excuses not to have their own free community.
It's definitely a theme, but some people are just like that (as has always been the case), and maybe they're the ones most inclined to comment on this matter.
Another theory: https://lobste.rs/s/omq8rt/vibecoding_gets_emacs_patch_rejec... (posted very much not because of the chatbot psychosis aspect, which doesn't seem relevant in this case, more the part about possible minor personality changes from long-term communing with LLMs)
So who are you actually angry at? There was a vote, by people, in a democratic process, and Codeberg are adhering to it. Why is it Codeberg's problem that they don't defy the will of their members? Are you angry at them because the members put a motion against your particular special interests? If so, go make a new motion to reinstate them.
It is of course in the right of voting members to do this. However, it undermines Codeberg as a stable repo hosting platform. If you are hosting a repo there for an open source project, it may suddenly be in violation after a whim of the voting members.
The signal is now that Codeberg is an activist platform. That is fine, but that makes it unfit for many projects that want a largely neutral hoster.
Just as they are free to do this, I am free to move my repositories elsewhere and stop donating.
(And I'm nothing near a vibe oder, but the way the terms are now formulated, even doing LLM-assisted programming could be a violation.)
I don't want to host my code on a platform that has activist goals beyond open source advocacy, but I'm glad it exists because it's a useful filter, like the X/Bluesky divide.
> I notice that both PRs were filed after the assembly and after the ballots went out
At least in Switzerland, you can not vote (well, you can but it does not have any effect) on things that are not mentioned within the agenda published and sent to members with the invitation. So IMHO these votes will not have any effect itself, just serve as an "indication".
I tend to agree but you can't deny that the widespread use of LLMs means that codeberg will expend more resources overall for projects taking advantage of them. And its members have spoken. We might disagree about the conclusion they came to and even how they went about it but their stance is clear now so we might as well just move on.
They're not banning code written and maintained bybthe use of LLM's. They're banning projects entirely created by LLM's and heavily or solely maintained by LLM's.
It's basically not allowing junkfood on their platform. Now that code is easier than ever to barf out, so will the amount of junk.
As for tossing out any and all crypto projects... how anyone still associating themselves with that pile of garbage?
we should also flag any projects to do with the enshittification of the world. Probably banning all JS, node, bun, loaf or any other related projects would be good.
Since we're talking about my opinions here, which should be construed as laws of my hosting platform, i always hated ruby so lets ban ruby.
In fact codeberg shall only accept Perl programs going forward that are written using emacs
Whilst I think that criticism of such heavy-handed decision making is valid, I can't help but feel this blog post is littered with unhelpful and snide culture war remarks, and a smug attitude that this is the definitive end of Codeberg. If Codeberg truly has gone woke, people who espouse 'anti-censorship at any cost', like the author, will leave. But many others will remain.
> unbridled hatred for AI and Web3 reeks of neo-Luddism
> distrust in other areas, such as quantum computing
you haven't even begun getting to the point and already lost me
> fear of the unknown
Unknown what, lol?
"we don't like X, Y Z for A, B, C reasons"
"Luddites, fear of quantum computing.. oh no I'm confused, they're so afraid of the future."
That is like someone mumbling at their shoes that someone is afraid of something. No notes.
At any rate: Are you afraid of a control group? Are you afraid of a surface not covered in slop, so it may keep slop knowable? Are you afraid to sink alone?
I really am beginning to think there really are two solitudes in software development right now.
I agree with you, and everyone I know and work with is in this category. Not just because of preferences but just because of necessity or pragmatics.
And then there is a community that either see the output of the tooling as a) complete garbage "slop" of low quality and this is, at this point just a false assessment completely at this point or b) immoral and on this point there is room for legitimate debate.
One problem is the way the discussion around this codeberg stuff seems to conflate A) and B).
Another problem seems to be is that some people who believe B, and believe it with all their hearts, can't even have a reasonable conversation with LLM tool users because if someone admits to using the tool, they now have a categorical judgement-lever and there's no middle ground. You used the tool, you're on the wrong side, get off my island. That's what I've seen in multiple comments yesterday and today about this topic.
I want to ask this in good faith
Why do "AI people", have this thing where they are simultaneously:
- proclaiming their thing to be inevitable and massive and a bulldozer of productivity;
- responding to any negative reaction like they are a persecuted group
It seems paradoxical to me. If your LLM-written project is so amazing, who cares about the critics?
Let them have their corner of the internet. There are plenty of other sites that will host your project.
Perhaps if you are a heavy codeberg user it is annoying to move onto Forgejo. But then again (and I say this without sarcasm) can't you get one of your agents to sort it out for you?
And also if AI is so great creating your own community or place to host stuff should be trivial. Zero effort really. So I really see no reason to co-opt existing place. As they are already making money with AI so hosting costs are really nothing either. So there is no excuses not to have their own free community.
It's definitely a theme, but some people are just like that (as has always been the case), and maybe they're the ones most inclined to comment on this matter.
Another theory: https://lobste.rs/s/omq8rt/vibecoding_gets_emacs_patch_rejec... (posted very much not because of the chatbot psychosis aspect, which doesn't seem relevant in this case, more the part about possible minor personality changes from long-term communing with LLMs)
So who are you actually angry at? There was a vote, by people, in a democratic process, and Codeberg are adhering to it. Why is it Codeberg's problem that they don't defy the will of their members? Are you angry at them because the members put a motion against your particular special interests? If so, go make a new motion to reinstate them.
It is of course in the right of voting members to do this. However, it undermines Codeberg as a stable repo hosting platform. If you are hosting a repo there for an open source project, it may suddenly be in violation after a whim of the voting members.
The signal is now that Codeberg is an activist platform. That is fine, but that makes it unfit for many projects that want a largely neutral hoster.
Just as they are free to do this, I am free to move my repositories elsewhere and stop donating.
(And I'm nothing near a vibe oder, but the way the terms are now formulated, even doing LLM-assisted programming could be a violation.)
You are simply not the target audience of Codeberg. That's okay.
If you are on Arch, you can do this simple fix (instructions are similar for other distros):
I don't want to host my code on a platform that has activist goals beyond open source advocacy, but I'm glad it exists because it's a useful filter, like the X/Bluesky divide.
> I notice that both PRs were filed after the assembly and after the ballots went out
At least in Switzerland, you can not vote (well, you can but it does not have any effect) on things that are not mentioned within the agenda published and sent to members with the invitation. So IMHO these votes will not have any effect itself, just serve as an "indication".
IANAL.
Time will tell whether Codeberg's approach of Valetudo-like community-building will work out.
The best thing I've seen in 2026. Thank you codeberg.
I agree, I went from github to gitlab. I should start looking at codeberg.
Only if you host public FOSS projects - it's not a replacement for private repos.
It seems a lot of people on here don't understand that.
I wasn't that interested in Codeberg until now, but this actually looks like a wise decision.
Banning LLM or crypto currency related projects is very bad. I think it's better to flag them or mark them, but let them be.
I tend to agree but you can't deny that the widespread use of LLMs means that codeberg will expend more resources overall for projects taking advantage of them. And its members have spoken. We might disagree about the conclusion they came to and even how they went about it but their stance is clear now so we might as well just move on.
They're not banning code written and maintained bybthe use of LLM's. They're banning projects entirely created by LLM's and heavily or solely maintained by LLM's.
It's basically not allowing junkfood on their platform. Now that code is easier than ever to barf out, so will the amount of junk.
As for tossing out any and all crypto projects... how anyone still associating themselves with that pile of garbage?
> Banning LLM or crypto currency related projects is very bad.
No, it's actually very good.
we should also flag any projects to do with the enshittification of the world. Probably banning all JS, node, bun, loaf or any other related projects would be good.
Since we're talking about my opinions here, which should be construed as laws of my hosting platform, i always hated ruby so lets ban ruby.
In fact codeberg shall only accept Perl programs going forward that are written using emacs
Can Gitlab be an alternative?
Whilst I think that criticism of such heavy-handed decision making is valid, I can't help but feel this blog post is littered with unhelpful and snide culture war remarks, and a smug attitude that this is the definitive end of Codeberg. If Codeberg truly has gone woke, people who espouse 'anti-censorship at any cost', like the author, will leave. But many others will remain.
> unbridled hatred for AI and Web3 reeks of neo-Luddism
> distrust in other areas, such as quantum computing
you haven't even begun getting to the point and already lost me
> fear of the unknown
Unknown what, lol?
"we don't like X, Y Z for A, B, C reasons"
"Luddites, fear of quantum computing.. oh no I'm confused, they're so afraid of the future."
That is like someone mumbling at their shoes that someone is afraid of something. No notes.
At any rate: Are you afraid of a control group? Are you afraid of a surface not covered in slop, so it may keep slop knowable? Are you afraid to sink alone?
Someone will always be upset about not getting for free what they wanted to get for free. Tough luck. I recommend a stiff upper lip.
Stop complaining and get Claude or whatever to one-shot a competing service that only hosts AI and crypto with blackjack and hookers.
If AI is inevitable then it's guaranteed infinity money.
Show the lowly morlocks how it's done.
Unironic use of "web3": article ignored
There was a quicker tell: opening with "Ah".
Ah, I was waiting for the inevitable AI pusher "you're sticking your head in the sand this is INEVITABLE" argument pushed by OpenAI and others.
Carry on, nothing to see here.
[dead]
[dead]
Had to read this one twice: “Projects "written and maintained with heavy use of LLMs".”
Isn’t that almost everything these days? If you’re using vscode or codex or Claude CLI you’re in that category.
You're absolutely right.
I really am beginning to think there really are two solitudes in software development right now.
I agree with you, and everyone I know and work with is in this category. Not just because of preferences but just because of necessity or pragmatics.
And then there is a community that either see the output of the tooling as a) complete garbage "slop" of low quality and this is, at this point just a false assessment completely at this point or b) immoral and on this point there is room for legitimate debate.
One problem is the way the discussion around this codeberg stuff seems to conflate A) and B).
Another problem seems to be is that some people who believe B, and believe it with all their hearts, can't even have a reasonable conversation with LLM tool users because if someone admits to using the tool, they now have a categorical judgement-lever and there's no middle ground. You used the tool, you're on the wrong side, get off my island. That's what I've seen in multiple comments yesterday and today about this topic.