Did you actually read through that post you linked? You realize not every project that was ever touched by a LLM is being thrown off? Read the "Some early, but informal guidelines" particularly, as you've seemingly missed that.

They're targeting slop and essentially spam, not everything that could possibly have been built by LLMs.

▲ ricardobeat 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Quoting from the post:

    > If you see yourself on this list, you don't need to move right away, but
    there might be other places that better fit your needs:

    - Projects written and maintained with heavy use of LLMs

All of the commits I browsed here seem to be LLM-assisted, so these projects are in this category. The policy being fuzzy is in itself a problem - "likely to be tolerated" is not a great policy to have your entire government depend on.

Personally, the refusal on "Projects heavily tied to the LLM ecosystem, e.g. LLM-written tools to ease LLM usage" is enough reason, as that's a good chunk of what I've been working on.

	▲	rhamzeh 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> "enough reason for me to move out" And that's not a bad thing. That's why they are communicating, so if you feel that is you and you're uncomfortable about it, you can move out and it's a win win. Not everything should service all of us, especially not the smaller services. It's OK for places to have their own rules and them being upfront about this is a good thing.
	▲	embedding-shape 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> The policy being fuzzy is in itself a problem No, the policy being fuzzy is a feature, because they're not 100% against all LLM usage, they're against slop and AI-spam, which is what they're trying to combat. Laws are fuzzy, and we're doing mostly fine with this, of course there are edge-cases. But that's exactly why laws are fuzzy in the first place. If you have a "automated software factory" or whatever the vibe-coders are up to today, then yes, Codeberg is probably not for you. But if you sit with a agent TUI in one tab, review things closely and don't just "throw code over the wall" without reviewing it, you have nothing to worry about with hosting code on Codeberg.

▲ wafflemaker 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Not OP, but I stand corrected. Thought it was 100% no generated code. Now I know better, thanks! Looks like codeberg aren't as mad as I thought.

	▲	mitxela an hour ago \| parent [-]
		In the future, consider reading a policy before complaining about it.