[rpdillon]

People downvote this kind of take because you're striking at the heart of the enforcement problem and also the definition of what a project that is majority built with AI really means. What they really want is to ascertain the amount of effort from a human that went into the project and they're using the percentage of code generated by an AI as a proxy metric. But it's a bad proxy, both because it doesn't capture human effort and because it is not measurable.

[skinfaxi]

Even human effort is a terrible proxy because effort is a gradient that depends on skill. An expert exerts low effort for the same result a novice would labor over.

[inigyou]

Maybe it shouldn't be viewed as some kind of reward but merely as a spam reduction measure. If you put in effort, it isn't spam.

[rpdillon]

That's a good point. I think the core metric is somehow quality, but that's notoriously difficult to measure.

[skinfaxi]

I recall having this same exact discussion with my philosophy professor years ago. We all know there is something different about a hand cooked meal and say putting a tablet in a box and a fully cooked meal comes out for you.

I feel like it may be closer to attention? That's the thing we actually value, that someone took the time and put in the effort to do something. And the quality depends on how much we value that attention. Like high effort low quality is praised when it's the work product of your child for instance.

[customguy]

> People downvote this kind of take because you're striking at the heart of the enforcement problem

That's not your problem.

[rpdillon]

What conversation are you trying to have? I don't even use Codeberg; I've spent years thinking about how the idea behind rules manifests when those rules are actually put in place and enforced. I think a lot about second and third order effects. That's my interest here: an org decided to put these particular rules in place, and based on my experience, I don't think it's going to age well.

But I guess you're right, as far as you go: none of this is my problem. I'm just a curious observer.

[customguy]

No, I need to apologise, I kinda got confused in the threads. That is, I thought this was downstream from another comment I made on the topic, where my point was basically: you (not the literal you who is interested in this on a different level) know if you used LLM. So if you have to ask, the answer is probably no, and if you're genuinely unsure, you can ask them.

I did you wrong, and in general we shouldn't guess the motivations of others, but I'll still say that lot of the comments asking what is the exact meaning of that rule is, how it will get enforced precisely, strike me as seeking to undermine the validity of their decision rather than wanting to make sure they don't run afoul of it. Or even coming up with ideas to help them enforce that rule better. One even said maybe we should test if they actually can tell. I responded to you as if responding to that, and that was uncalled for.

Take the HN guidelines, for example. It's impossible to make them completely "clean cut" rules. But people know that if they genuinely think there's been a misunderstanding they want to clear up, they can contact HN. And with Codeberg it's probably like that, too. Not like Google, where the rules ideally should be 100% clear and mathematically accurate, because you just get nuked by algorithms with no recourse.

You might even say if people post on HN, they already understand what fuzzy rules are, by definition. They know language is fuzzy and that the letter of the law points at the spirit of the law. If someone doesn't want to understand that spirit, no amount of legalese detail will make them understand it. But of course that shouldn't be an argument to shut down discussion about it, either, and I didn't mean it like that.

[rpdillon]

Thanks for the reply! There's an interesting topic here with respect to fuzzy rules. I definitely like them sometimes because they can capture values and allow for human judgment (which is more costly, but usually better than hard-and-fast rules). I think works well on HN because dang and tomhow tirelessly patrol and enforce, and they both have superb judgment - they aren't just randos that got to moderate the subreddit, they are quite literally the backbone of what I think is the best social site that's ever existed. Lots of human effort there.

Codeberg is different. It's a non-profit, so my criticism is mostly around all the heat and light that will be generated when they start banning projects (politically), and the amount of human effort that it will take to assess whether a project is "majority" written by AI. I just think the way the rule is written is fraught with issues that will cause a lot of wasted effort in the coming months and years.