[bigfishrunning]

It's true that an LLM ban is really hard to enforce, but that doesn't mean it's worthless. If i make an image editor and say "It is my policy that serial killers and pedophiles cannot use my software" i can't really enforce that, but it still makes a (somewhat useless) statement.

In my opinion, not allowing LLM code at least signals that codeberg (and forgejo) itself is unlikely to be majority LLM code, which raises its stock in my book; It signals what kind of people the maintainers are.

[rpdillon]

> what kind of people the maintainers are.

Can you elaborate on this? It's new that we're judging what kind of people we're dealing with based on what tools they use.

[bigfishrunning]

I really meant -- are these maintainers passionate about the design and maintenance of their tools, are they trying to slop up a demo fast enough that some VC buys them out, is this project a goal in itself or the means to some other end, etc...

Open source software that exists for its own sake is exceedingly rare, and understanding the goals of a community before becoming dependent on it is a good idea

[rpdillon]

OK! This makes sense, and I agree. But I don't think banning LLM usage gets us there. LLMs are going to be used for coding, whether anyone likes it or not. I think focusing on the effort and care that is put into the codebase is a good metric: LLM generated code that is reviewed by teams of professionals, for example, is a huge win, and should be encouraged.

I readily concede that there is a huge volume of inexperienced programmers generating crap, though.

It's basically Eternal September for programming.

[inigyou]

If you made this statement and you catch a serial killer using your software, it affects the options. A more reasonable example may be: Microsoft may not reverse engineer this. They still can do it privately - you can't enforde it - but if you catch them, then you have more options besides saying "welp, I said they could"