6 ms·
i wonder how they will detect it though. is there some good tool to tell them if code files someone submit were outputs or altered by LLMs?
by saidnooneever 3mo ago
i wonder how they will detect it though. is there some good tool to tell them if code files someone submit were outputs or altered by LLMs?
- Vivek-KY 3mo agoeven i wonder,its hard to detect it.
- guessmyname 3mo agoMost people leave the “Co-authored-by: <name>” lines in their Git commits [1]. I’m not sure why exactly, but I suppose it's either laziness or a lack of care. Regardless, if I were Codeberg, that would be the first thing I’d detect, and then I might use a Random Forest Classifier to identify the rest. [1] https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests/how-tos/commit-changes/creating-a-commit-with-multiple-authors https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests/how-tos/commit-chan...
- prennert 3mo agohonesty?
- applfanboysbgon 3mo agoAGENTS.MD and CLAUDE.MD also provide easy detection avenues. Trivial measures will probably catch 70-80% or more. You don't need a 100% enforcement rate for a rule to exist, indeed there are basically no rules anywhere in the world that achieve that.
- ramon156 3mo agoThen the linux repo is also banned. I don't think that's a good way to detect "vibe coding"
- FabCH 3mo agoThe Linux repo clearly would be considered vibe-coded by Codeberg policy and it being banned is the policy working as intended. It is probably a good example of why do many people think that the policy is ultimately counter productive even to Codeberg itself.
- mattashii 3mo agoWhilst they may provide a strong signal, I wouldn't call it a guarantee. If I wanted to avoid vibe-coded contributions I might add such files, but with instructions for the agents that they're not allowed to read or touch any of the files in the repository.
- Mashimo 3mo agoBut that just means they probably used AI to help code, not that it is vibe coded, no?
- graemep 3mo agoIt does not prove anything. Some could not commit those files to avoid detection, and those files exist in projects in which only some code is AI generated. I have them in projects where, for example, LLMs were used to generate tests and for a few fixes/additions in the rest of the code.
- Trung0246 3mo agoAt that point just use whitelist-based approach. I already used gitignore like that. It also easier to avoid committing temp file and secret through whitelist because those file are never in gitignore in the first place.
- K0nserv 3mo agoI feel it's a faux pas to pass off work entirely or partially done with AI as your own. I make sure I leave those lines in specifically for that reason.
- raesene9 3mo agoAs other have mentioned, and I'm the same. Leaving "Co-Authored by:" feels like open disclosure of how the project was created. That way if a consumer does not want to use LLM generated/assisted software, it's easy for them to do that without having to search around in the codebase for "AI Tells". Removing those would feel like I was mis-representing my coding abilities (LLMs are better at most coding than I am) :)
- skeledrew 3mo agoI expressly leave them there for transparency and potential future analysis. I'm even working on a coauthor attribution format for work done with Pi agent, as well as when there are multiple models collaborating. If Codeberg wants to gatekeep on AI-generated code, I'll leave them to their tiny niche.
- adisguy 3mo agoIt's rare to see terms of use that are all actively enforced. I think it makes sense to state the outlines to justify e.g. banning a user, or in potential legal matters (IANAL, just assuming).
- no-name-here 3mo agoTrue, but it still enhances uncertainty for users - if you uploaded trade secrets, malware, etc you already had that uncertainty, now you also have it for whether your code will be deemed too high a percent AI, when you thought it was only ~1/3 AI or whatever.
- seanclayton 3mo agoUsing any AI code is a risk of ban on codeberg. Just write it yourself and no one can say it's written by AI.
- OleksandrC 3mo agoClaude-written code is quite easy to spot - because it has this particular style of overly verbose "walls of text" comments, that 1. repeat verbatim what the code just below does, 2. include "list of things" that quickly go stale, 3. talk about "how things used to be before we changed it here" (useless to anyone reading the code now), 4. "talk to reviewer" in comments. And many other comment sins. And even if you tell it to make it leaner, it'll maybe trim a little, but it'll still be a wall of text. Claude really likes to write its opuses and fables in comments. And commit messages suffer from the same verbose prose. And all of that happens even if you explicitly instruct in CLAUDE.md to keep things lean/concise. It's a disease.
- timjver 3mo agoThat doesn't really answer the question of how they're going to detect it at scale. Ban repositories with long comments?
- OleksandrC 3mo agoThey could, for example: 1. Rely on users flagging suspected repos (with human moderators reviewing afterwards). 2. Deploying AI agents to evaluate repos against known AI-generated-code patterns (also with human moderators afterwards). Of course, the irony of the situation - using slop machines to fight slop.
- ande-mnoc 3mo agoIt’s very poetic that codes written without human efforts can be efficiently dealt without human efforts.
- roundabout-host 3mo agoNon-generative AI is not slop.
- themgt 3mo agoClaude-written code is quite easy to spot - because it has this particular style of overly verbose "walls of text" comments, that 1. repeat verbatim what the code just below does, 2. include "list of things" that quickly go stale, 3. talk about "how things used to be before we changed it here" (useless to anyone reading the code now), 4. "talk to reviewer" in comments. And many other comment sins. "quite easy to spot" this style in what sense? To a human? To an LLM? To a deterministic code scanner you wrote by hand yourself, per Codeberg policy?
- flohofwoe 3mo agoI'd guess that it only matters once shit hits the fan (e.g. a copyright dispute or license violation). E.g. when the project owner claims that he wasn't aware of the violation because LLMs wrote all the code, Codeberg can simply point to the terms of use before deleting the project, which from their point of view is a quick and clean solution to the problem.
- winstonwinston 3mo agoFor starters they (those who submit) should not hide the fact. If they do, it is quite obvious to spot LLM generated code for anyone competent.