[SiempreViernes]

The main problem is that so many LLM users are selfish bastards and they won't respect the spirit of such rules and will only stop when the hard disk quotas force them to.

So now your solution entails lowering the quota for everybody because allowing in LLyou must assume eve

[eviks]

How does adding a few words to TOS stop "selfish bastards"?

[soapdog]

Gives them a line to justify removing projects in the future if they are caught violating the ToS.

[rpdillon]

Do we have a tool that can detect whether a project is majority LLM-written? This is an unenforceable rule, unless it's just coming down to vibes and they're going to decide what projects to ban based on their feelings.

[inigyou]

They are monitoring their resource usage. If they find a resource leak and it's traced to an LLM project, they will delete it.

Terms of use should be read as a statement of intent, not a series of if-then statements.

[skydhash]

> It is an unenforceable rule

Are you sure? It's pretty easy to find telltale signs of LLM usage, like the CLAUDE.md file, the '.cursor' directory, the 'vim'-sized codebase done in a week.

[rpdillon]

That's just vibes. Measuring how much data someone uses is concrete and empirical. They are implementing TOS rules that are based on judgement and require a judge. Very different when implemented practically, especially in terms of effort on the part of the org. Quotas are automated, evicting projects is highly manual.

[skydhash]

> That's just vibes.

They are not. You can probably draft some query to get candidates based on those criteria. And so very quickly.

> Quotas are automated, evicting projects is highly manual.

The human world is very chaotic. Automation is not a panacea, which is highlighted by Big Tech abysmal support. Sometimes, you want humans to judge, because the optimal result is based on heuristics and not rules written in stone.