Do they really prohibit all use? My reading of their policy is that they mainly block vibe coding. It doesn't seem like LLM auto-complete or using it to review your code would run afoul of it.
Hmm I have my Hugo website there, closed repo and build, in part, with LLMs. Never realized while setting thing up that both are not allowed tbh. I just wanted to not choose GH.
Does the "no restricting freedom" principle apply across the board for you, or only for those users who aren't racist, sexist and homophobic? (Some might even be Nazis.)
Insecure human slop on top of that. Projects not checked in-depth by AI is recklessness at this point, prove me wrong with an example.
I've found 2 serious vulnerabilities in Librewolf (can crash computer from HTML page, from an iframe) as an example this week, as per their rule, agent isn't allowed to report it, guess we will just have to leave those critical around or wait around that a human discover them while attackers already exploit them in the wild :/
Codeberg doesn't want the world to be secure, quite shady, unless they care to explain what's the downside of discovering critical vulnerabilities with AI, especially automatically? Thinking that humans will write more secure programs than machines is just wrong and shows an outdated and dangerous mindset.
Their ToS only forbids projects that 'mostly consist of code' created with genAI, it says nothing of code that is reviewed through it or projects where it only makes up a small portion of the whole package. The reasons for that are outlined and quite clear - their organization focuses on projects with a certain license and LLM code is in limbo regarding its copyright status.
Basically, unlike your stance, they are rejecting people who are outright saying that AI alone > humans. Which seems to be a popular opinion on HN. Given how angry you are about this, I don't think there's as much separating your opinion from the vibe coders' view as you think there is. I mean, look at this, we're only a few years into LLMs being viable code generators and we already have people accuse them of malice, recklessness and embracing 'human slop' because they dare to have a softball policy on not using this brand new tech absolutely everywhere and for everything. What will the average opinion be like in 2 years? Humans are just bad and can't be trusted to do anything manual at a computer, leave it to the agent?
> What will the average opinion be like in 2 years?
The people who pretended to be virusologists and financial moguls in the previous bubbles and are now pretending to be software developers will move on to something else once this bubble pops.
I wonder how much internet-argument bandwidth would be saved if we used different words for "freedom from" vs "freedom to", instead of putting both things on a single scale and then arguing over which is "more free"...
So they will never have these frequent downtime issues because they will never be bombarded by agents building millions of personal tools with no license applied. Clever.
Free as in freedom has had a rather specific meaning in software for the past 40+ years, which is "software that matches the Free Software definition." Codeberg runs on Forgejo, whose authors grant you the rights to run, study, modify, and distribute it - unlike GitHub, which is proprietary. (Indeed, there are many Forgejo instances besides Codeberg, it's not just a theoretical benefit.)
It is a ridiculous misinterpretation to assume it means "somebody else will host anything I upload, free of charge", which is of course not the case - not on GitHub either, by the way, their ToS just happens to be more friendly to slop.
(For understandable reasons, too; while M$ is making a killing from selling LLM access & Free Software as training data, the main "benefit" Codeberg sees is getting DDoSed by LLM scrapers 24/7 and vibecoders using up disproportionate amounts of resources.)
Not sure if the comment was regarding the suicides. That would be a bit gruesome. But the US had been known to judge in favor of people being stupid and suing the company. Specifically this case comes to mind: https://abc7.com/amp/post/socal-woman-sues-starbucks-spilled...
But also cases like the 2 girls suing Snapchat and settling for unknown amounts of money.
This involved drive-through service, just like the 1994 McDonalds coffee case. Perhaps businesses should just refuse to serve hot coffee via such a drive through, since it stands to reason that people who happen to be sitting in a car will be quite likely to spill their drink in a dangerous way.
The even more insane thing to me is that the controller knew that there was another train in that block, knowing it was no signal failure. The driving train should’ve never been commanded to continue on full speed by the controller.
Trains shouldn’t even be manually driven in 2026. We have self driving cars now which is a way harder problem to solve. Relying on a system of signals and driver attentiveness is archaic.
> Trains shouldn’t even be manually driven in 2026
Potentially, but the point is that signallers should physically be unable to allow trains to proceed, and drivers should physically not be able to override them. British signalling from the 1800s has physical interlocks; this isn't a matter of manual versus automatic train operation. It is clearly systemic.
Driving a train and driving a car are two completely different challenges.
If signaling worked properly then it wouldn't matter whether the train was driven autonomously or not, the "problem" becomes trivial. Establishing and continuously verifying that signaling is working properly is the hard part.
Without signaling you're limited to crawling speed just like humans are when they don't have any signalling .
LZB does cab-signalling and continuously supervises speed and braking curves. Combined with AFB it can accelerate and brake automatically to LZB targets. So regular operations are already partly automated (and have been for a long time). The system already doesn't rely on perfect driver attentiveness for safety. The driver should still watch the track ahead, but trains usually can't stop within line of sight anyway, so for separation we have to rely on the signalling system.
Drivers are absolutely still needed for other parts of the operation though, like working stations, shunting, and perhaps most importantly handling irregularities.
Faults can happen and you don't want the train to be stuck out on the track for hours. Instead, it makes so much more sense to either fall back to lineside signals (often accompanied with a point-based train protection system) or driving within line of sight.
Yeah, if you completely ignore availability as a problem. The state of the art self-driving technologies we have today only work in some conditions, some of the time.
The reason vehicles are still driven manually is because humans rely on transportation every day, all of the time.
We do not have self-driving cars in all environments that clear the necessary security regulation! Also the socially accepted number of deaths due to trains is way below that for cars. The current accident is just a Tuesday for car traffic. (Spain recorded 1785 road deaths in 2024[1], that's 4.9 per day) Detecting objects (and future objects!) on a train track is still a hard problem.
The current system is basically that the train is driven both automatically and by a professional attentive driver at the same time. Changing it to just the automatic system is going to reduce safety. Also the real world is way to messy to reach acceptable availability rates with only automatic systems.
What's the stopping distance of a high-speed train at full speed? I don't know, but I bet it's kilometers, not meters.
Detecting an object on the tracks 2 km away (say), as opposed to beside the track at the same distance, is in fact a hard problem. The tech used in self-driving cars is not going to solve it.
Yeah, that's a solved problem. Did you even read my whole comment? I answered why "just use the system from self-driving cars" wouldn't work and in fact would be less safe than the current system.
Diagrams and really, just designing the software you are trying to build is mostly about finding out painpoints before you start the programming (at least at point the time-consuming part). The diagramming allowed you to, without programming, show interactions between modules and check on a high level if you are missing edgecases that can’t be solved because of the design.
If you were just using it just to apply design patterns then you were doing it for the wrong purposes.
Oh, yeah, it was definitely being done for the wrong purpose. But it was fun, more fun than solving the problems. OOP and the design pattern craze made it feel like progress, when it was actually just about messing around.
Ehm, no. They don’t all do at least. For one, Rabobank does not require it. You can use the app to authorize in the browser. But for big transfers you still need their Rabo Scanner (which you get the first one of for free).
It's being phased in due to regulations. They're allowed to offer insecure SMS 2FA to confirm transfers, etc. as an alternative but are supposed to move away from it.
reply