[adamddev1]

They're not obligated to deal with the higher load brought on by people's LLM coded projects, CI pipelines etc. In order to keep things freed up and flexible for others, I think it's fair for them to say, "in this community, we're going to save the space for more hand-coded projects."

It's not fair for everyone to have to eat the costs of AI (like communities getting bulldozed for data centers) and just accept that it has to be used.

[Hendrikto]

Of course nobody is obligated and I never claimed that. In fact, I fucking hate the LLM hypetrain. But this decision is decidedly non-neutral and non-free.

[adamddev1]

Fair point, but I mean perhaps it's not fair for them to have to impose usage limits (which would limit everybody) when they could just make a decision to avoid certain types of projects (which they feel strongly about.)

[inigyou]

What would a neutral free SaaS look like to you?

[Hendrikto]

Simple: Provide the same freedoms to everybody. Do not get involved unless absolutely required to by law. That entails not restricting access for specific projects, and not revoking freedoms for any reason. Everybody should get the same treatment.

For example, in the case of being overloaded by AI contributions, a neutral solution would be to implement the same rate-limiting for every project. Set a sensible limit, and enforce it universally. Do not discriminate specific projects.

[inigyou]

Why should GNOME and Forgejo, which are great projects, have to suffer the same limitations as a blob of non-working output from a Markov chain?

It is like saying Gmail shouldn't delete spam, but instead, should apply a limit of 1 message per day per destination per source address to all messages.

Most vibe projects aren't even projects in the way that spam isn't even mail. The message says it's from my bank but it isn't. Why should I have the same limits on messages that say they're from my bank and messages that are actually from my bank?

[Hendrikto]

I do not think you get the point.

Yes, human rights should apply to anybody, including war criminals. That is what makes them HUMAN rights.

Universal freedoms and neutrality should apply universally, including to waste-of-time-and-resources AI slop. That is what makes them UNIVERSAL and NEUTRAL.

> It is like saying Gmail shouldn't delete spam, but instead, should apply a limit of 1 message per day per destination per source address to all messages.

I said a REASONABLE limit should be applied. 1 message is not reasonable and you know yourself that this is a bad faith argument if you are honest.

1k messages on the other hand would be a reasonable limit. There is pretty much no legitimate use case for sending more than that to any specific address from any specific destination in a single day.

It is also bad faith because Gmail never claimed to be free or neutral.

[tliltocatl]

Hosting your code on a free server is not a universal right. It is a privilege.

[inigyou]

If Google allowed each spammer to send me up to 1k messages per day that wouldn't exactly solve the spam problem, would it?