> imagine LLMs got twice as good as they are today)

I have no idea how you'd quantify that, but they're pretty good already. At least in the hands of someone who knows what they're doing.

I share everybody's concern about many aspects of LLMs; copyright, data collection, energy use, component prices, not to mention what it does to us: outsourcing our thinking, dependency, slop. And I don't entirely disagree wanting to limit that.

And yet, I have just written a library that I was planning to put on Codeberg, but I've used a lot of LLM assistance for it, because it's simply too big otherwise. I put a lot of effort on code quality and architecture, and I don't think this counts as slop, but I do think it violates Codeberg's new rule, so I guess I'll have to look for another place.

No idea where yet; I don't want to go to Github, and I believe there were similar concerns about Gitlab, so I don't know where to go yet.

▲

Aachen 14 hours ago | parent [-]

If you could have built it yourself but it was just too much work for the available time, then I trust that indeed the architecture will be sound and it sounds to me like it should be fine to build this way and host on Codeberg... until this amendment :/. I feel sorry that I'm part of this organisation that just shut the door on you

How's your appetite for self hosting? I've only ever hosted the predecessor of Forgejo, Gitea, and that was a breeze. Sadly I'm not aware of other open source hosting platforms, like, if you search "forgejo is confirmed" (with quotes) you find a lot of instances, but the point of Codeberg was the (presumed) longevity

	▲	mcv 13 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I was hoping my library is useful enough to enough people that a community would form around it. Self hosting doesn't sound like a good way to do that. I'll have a look at Gitea. Otherwise it's probably going to be Github. Or I'll self host until I find something better.