[yogthos]

A great way to ensure that most developers will not be using Codeberg going forward. While there's a ton of drama around LLM use right now, anybody who's actually used this tech in anger understands that these tools really do work, and that they will only be used more in the future. I guess Codeberg is angling to become a small artisanal community, and there might certainly be a niche for that.

[WolfeReader]

If the outcome is that most vibe-coders leave Codeberg alone, that seems like a win for Codeberg.

[yogthos]

The outcome is obviously going to be that most coders leave Codeberg because LLMs are not going anywhere, and they will continue to be integrating into people's workflows. But perhaps Codeberg intends on becoming something akin to a digital Amish community, and there's nothing wrong with that.

[andOlga]

"Not going anywhere" is such a strange argument. Tomato juice isn't going anywhere, does it mean I'm going to be guzzling it at some point in my life? What?

If you've made your choice about LLMs based on morals or ethics rather than the quality of the tooling, you're not going to change that choice because the models haven't disappeared or have improved, unless you're forced to (but that forced bit applies only to commercial open source which really just isn't on Codeberg at all in the first place).

It has been long enough that just about everyone has made that choice by now. Those who are okay with this won't magically flip and start using LLMs and grow a reason to leave.

[yogthos]

Every moral or ethical argument ultimately boils down to problems inherent in how any piece of automation is used under capitalism, and has little to do with technology itself. If you spend a bit of time thinking about morals or ethics you'll quickly realize that LLMs are not the problem.

And no, a year is absolutely not long enough for everyone to have made a choice about this tooling. Claiming any sorts of absolutes about completely new technology that's rapidly evolving is absolutely delusional.

[andOlga]

You're not wrong regarding your first paragraph. However, capitalism is not going anywhere ;) as such, moral objections to the use of tooling in this system amount to objections to the tools themselves. I don't see "people might use AI more if we dismantle and rebuild the entire world order" as a particularly realistic scenario, sad as that is.

And in any other case I would agree with your second paragraph as well! But AI is very, excessively loud. Even if you never wanted to -- especially if you never wanted to -- you were already overexposed to it ages ago (when it was at its worst, really, but that's probably beside the point). You would have made your choices then: use now, never use, or use later if it improves. I'll grant the technicality that "everyone" is hyperbole of course, but when you have grandmas and children both talking about the thing, yeah no. You'd be hard pressed to find someone without a stance. And someone remotely interested in Codeberg not having one? Come on now.

[WolfeReader]

The current adoption of LLMs by developers seems to be a bit more than 20%.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/10/06/about-1-i...

This is just for professional jobs (and is 9 months old) of course.

[yogthos]

That's an incredible rate of adoption given that this stuff has only been really usable for the past year or so.

[WolfeReader]

It sure is! But I guess it would be less fun to say "1 out of 5 developers will not be using Codeberg going forward". Especially since that may well be an intended effect of Codeberg's decision here.

As long as AI is a source of environmental damage, cognitive harm, and a cause of rising hardware costs, there will always be a sizeable set of developers who want nothing to do with it. The headline should be "AI Divides".

[yogthos]

There's no basis for thinking that LLM use will not continue to grow going forward. The fact that 1 in 5 developers already use this technology only a year or so after it's become really useful shows that adoption is growing rapidly.

Meanwhile, the arguments regarding environmental damage and cognitive harm are rather spurious. You can already run models like Qwen 3.6 27b on your laptop today, and it can do serious work. And the efficiency of the models only keeps improving. Meanwhile, studies showing cognitive effects you allude to have used laughably small samples, and these same types of arguments were made every time the way people work with code changed. I'm old enough to remember people screeching how you weren't a real programmer if you didn't use assembly, or that GC was ruining programming.

There's always a group of people who made a certain set of skills their whole identity who get really upset when those skill become automated. There will always be a sizeable set of current generation of developers who will want nothing to do with it, but people getting into development today will treat LLMs as a part of their regular toolkit. At the end of the day it's just a tool like any other.