They did not disallow LLM contributions, and they definitely didn't disallow using LLMs to research security vulnerabilities. They only disallowed projects that are majority LLM-written.

https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/commit/71149c7fc95ccfeae36...

▲

badsectoracula an hour ago | parent [-]

That is about Codeberg, not Forgejo.

Forgejo disallows LLM contributions, including using a "general AI" (they include LLMs under "general AI") for reviews[0]:

> 5. Using general AI for review is forbidden. If the change contains changes to the UX it has to be approved by a human reviewer.

[0] https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAg...

	▲	burkaman an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Ah sorry, didn't realize they had their own policy. This is a little stronger, but you can certainly still use an LLM to search for vulnerabilities, you would just need to write fixes yourself and mention if you used an LLM for assistance. The rule you quoted is about code reviews, they don't want you using an LLM to write reviews or leave comments. This is a pretty poorly written policy to be honest, so I understand if you interpret it to mean "no LLMs in any capacity", but I think if that's what they meant they would have said that. In fact they explicitly allow content "made with the help of AI", you just have to disclose it.
	▲	overfeed 43 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> Forgejo disallows LLM contributions You're misreading the rule. >> 5. Using general AI for review is forbidden. The second sentence makes it even clearer, as it would have been unnecessary under a blanket ban scenario >> ... If the change contains changes to the UX it has to be approved by a human reviewer.