[jbreckmckye]

I want to ask this in good faith

Why do the very vocal "AI people" online 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 almost like 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. I get that. But ultimately Codeberg has the right to decide these things

[Ekaros]

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.

[tclancy]

Seriously. And you know they would want hookers and blackjack anyway, so why don't they? Maybe because blackjack has fairer odds than the games they rig.

[cmrdporcupine]

It's not good faith if you start right away by defining a group of people called "AI people" and then putting words in their mouths.

Starting your comment by saying "in good faith" doesn't make it in good faith.

Making straw-men is not honest debate.

And what you're not mentioning here is that there are people who actually felt they had their own corner of the Internet, didn't/don't consider themselves "AI people", just happened to use a tool, and now retroactively having a judgement applied to them.

That's fine if you think it's okay to do that. I think you're being dishonest in your framing of the discussion though, by creating a "two sides" scenario to justify in-group / out-group behaviours.

[tom_]

I assume "AI people" is in quotes to indicate that it's kind of a term of art. Like Car People. Or Computer People. Some visible, bothersome subset of the (much larger (like, how many people these days don't use a car? (ok, so it's not zero, but it's hardly the opposite either))) category of people that use the thing in question.

[cmrdporcupine]

That's still making a strawman?

[monkaiju]

How is that inherently a strawman? Thats just talking about a group of people with a vague, and intentionally vague given the quotations, shared support for a tool.

[jbreckmckye]

If I said "AI enthusiasts" would that feel like less of an attack?

> I think you're being dishonest in your framing

Asking without malice: why are you telling me this?

This is an open internet forum. You can suspect my sincerity but also, I can suspect yours.

Neither of us can ever prove we mean what we say. We just have to muddle on and ignore anything we think is trolling

[cmrdporcupine]

Because having been "voted off the island" and having to spend the last 3 days grinding away reworking my entire documentation, release process, community outreach, and hosting situation, I am naturally irritated by people then mischaracerizing motives about why I and others might be complaining? And then having the nerve to try to bucket me in some fictitious category of AI people to justify these aspersions? And then having the nerve to frame it as fair presentation.

"AI enthusiast" is an equally crude word for people who happened to use a tool in authoring their project.

That answer your question?

Or maybe you don't actually have stakes in this situation and don't understand why people who put their passion into their projects might be frustrated? Or does your bucket of "AI people" not include people who put heart and soul into their work?

You asked the question in your opening comment and framed it as "fair question", so I'm not sure why you're surprised by the answer.

[jbreckmckye]

You are clearly very angry about this.

Codeberg wants to protect their hosting from the large volume of AI projects.

What do you think the right solution is here?

[cmrdporcupine]

The honest and respectful answer from the Codeberg community would have been: resource limits, quotas, and a reviewed application form for new projects.

And maybe a statement that: "Pre-existing vibe coded projects providing little value to the community may be subject to review."

Instead we got a Lord Of the Flies moment.

... Personally I was planning up to that point on donating once I got paying work again.

[inigyou]

It seems identical to the mindset that used to surround cryptocurrencies.

[tom_]

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)