4 ms·

> people using LLMs are using up disproportionately huge hosting resources So block huge resource use? What if people use LLMs with disproportionately tiny res

by eviks 3mo ago

> people using LLMs are using up disproportionately huge hosting resources So block huge resource use? What if people use LLMs with disproportionately tiny resource use?

SiempreViernes 3mo ago
The main problem is that so many LLM users are selfish bastards and they won't respect the spirit of such rules and will only stop when the hard disk quotas force them to. So now your solution entails lowering the quota for everybody because allowing in LLyou must assume eve
- eviks 3mo ago
  How does adding a few words to TOS stop "selfish bastards"?
  - soapdog 3mo ago
    Gives them a line to justify removing projects in the future if they are caught violating the ToS.
    - rpdillon 3mo ago
      Do we have a tool that can detect whether a project is majority LLM-written? This is an unenforceable rule, unless it's just coming down to vibes and they're going to decide what projects to ban based on their feelings.
      - skydhash 3mo ago
        > It is an unenforceable rule Are you sure? It's pretty easy to find telltale signs of LLM usage, like the CLAUDE.md file, the '.cursor' directory, the 'vim'-sized codebase done in a week.
        rpdillon 3mo ago
        That's just vibes. Measuring how much data someone uses is concrete and empirical. They are implementing TOS rules that are based on judgement and require a judge. Very different when implemented practically, especially in terms of effort on the part of the org. Quotas are automated, evicting projects is highly manual.
        skydhash 3mo ago
        > That's just vibes. They are not. You can probably draft some query to get candidates based on those criteria. And so very quickly. > Quotas are automated, evicting projects is highly manual. The human world is very chaotic. Automation is not a panacea, which is highlighted by Big Tech abysmal support. Sometimes, you want humans to judge, because the optimal result is based on heuristics and not rules written in stone.
        rpdillon 3mo ago
        Non-profits like Codeberg are resource-constrained. Apple is delaying app reviews and degrading the reviews that are done because of a slew of AI-generated app. Codeberg is basically adding a "human must review things" step to solve the "we have too much traffic" problem. As a bonus, they are instituting a process that's not only costly, but is vulnerable to being co-opted to ban projects that are not desired for any reason. It's just a naive policy mistake. Time will tell. Let's revisit in 2 years.
      - inigyou 3mo ago
        They are monitoring their resource usage. If they find a resource leak and it's traced to an LLM project, they will delete it. Terms of use should be read as a statement of intent, not a series of if-then statements.
adamddev1 3mo ago
Making a principled ban against LLM would seem to allow for more freedom and flexibility with usage limits. People who are creating more by hand would still be allowed to have more breathing room. With a hard limit of resources everyone would be more restricted. That's also a solution, but it's just a totally different approach. The LLM ban could help to allow for freedom without the resources getting overwhelmed.
- eviks 3mo ago
  > principled ban against LLM So was it about high resource use, or a principle? > People who are creating more by hand would still be allowed to have more breathing room. What about the breathing of people creating by hand with a sprinkle of an LLM? > but it's just a totally different approach. Indeed, a better one where you manage directly the issue you claim to care about
  - layer8 3mo ago
    My interpretation is that the resource usage should be roughly proportional to the human activity involved. That wouldn’t restrict resource usage by any individual project, which might be a popular project with many contributors and a lot of activity, but the resource consumption needs to be justified by corresponding human effort and interest, which LLM usage doesn’t exhibit.
    - inigyou 3mo ago
      https://blog.codeberg.org/protecting-our-floss-commons-from-llms.html https://blog.codeberg.org/protecting-our-floss-commons-from-... In this corresponding blog post, one point made is that LLMs tend to LARP big-project infrastructure on small projects. They use the resources for something like GNOME but they aren't actually GNOME so they don't have any excuse for it.
  - inigyou 3mo ago
    Both. They noticed the high resource usage of LLMs and decided that LLMs, in general, aren't worth supporting.

by eviks 3mo ago

> people using LLMs are using up disproportionately huge hosting resources So block huge resource use? What if people use LLMs with disproportionately tiny resource use?

SiempreViernes 3mo ago

The main problem is that so many LLM users are selfish bastards and they won't respect the spirit of such rules and will only stop when the hard disk quotas force them to. So now your solution entails lowering the quota for everybody because allowing in LLyou must assume eve

eviks 3mo ago
How does adding a few words to TOS stop "selfish bastards"?
- soapdog 3mo ago
  Gives them a line to justify removing projects in the future if they are caught violating the ToS.
  - rpdillon 3mo ago
    Do we have a tool that can detect whether a project is majority LLM-written? This is an unenforceable rule, unless it's just coming down to vibes and they're going to decide what projects to ban based on their feelings.
    - skydhash 3mo ago
      > It is an unenforceable rule Are you sure? It's pretty easy to find telltale signs of LLM usage, like the CLAUDE.md file, the '.cursor' directory, the 'vim'-sized codebase done in a week.
      - rpdillon 3mo ago
        That's just vibes. Measuring how much data someone uses is concrete and empirical. They are implementing TOS rules that are based on judgement and require a judge. Very different when implemented practically, especially in terms of effort on the part of the org. Quotas are automated, evicting projects is highly manual.
        skydhash 3mo ago
        > That's just vibes. They are not. You can probably draft some query to get candidates based on those criteria. And so very quickly. > Quotas are automated, evicting projects is highly manual. The human world is very chaotic. Automation is not a panacea, which is highlighted by Big Tech abysmal support. Sometimes, you want humans to judge, because the optimal result is based on heuristics and not rules written in stone.
        rpdillon 3mo ago
        Non-profits like Codeberg are resource-constrained. Apple is delaying app reviews and degrading the reviews that are done because of a slew of AI-generated app. Codeberg is basically adding a "human must review things" step to solve the "we have too much traffic" problem. As a bonus, they are instituting a process that's not only costly, but is vulnerable to being co-opted to ban projects that are not desired for any reason. It's just a naive policy mistake. Time will tell. Let's revisit in 2 years.
    - inigyou 3mo ago
      They are monitoring their resource usage. If they find a resource leak and it's traced to an LLM project, they will delete it. Terms of use should be read as a statement of intent, not a series of if-then statements.

adamddev1 3mo ago

Making a principled ban against LLM would seem to allow for more freedom and flexibility with usage limits. People who are creating more by hand would still be allowed to have more breathing room. With a hard limit of resources everyone would be more restricted. That's also a solution, but it's just a totally different approach. The LLM ban could help to allow for freedom without the resources getting overwhelmed.

eviks 3mo ago
> principled ban against LLM So was it about high resource use, or a principle? > People who are creating more by hand would still be allowed to have more breathing room. What about the breathing of people creating by hand with a sprinkle of an LLM? > but it's just a totally different approach. Indeed, a better one where you manage directly the issue you claim to care about
- layer8 3mo ago
  My interpretation is that the resource usage should be roughly proportional to the human activity involved. That wouldn’t restrict resource usage by any individual project, which might be a popular project with many contributors and a lot of activity, but the resource consumption needs to be justified by corresponding human effort and interest, which LLM usage doesn’t exhibit.
  - inigyou 3mo ago
    https://blog.codeberg.org/protecting-our-floss-commons-from-llms.html https://blog.codeberg.org/protecting-our-floss-commons-from-... In this corresponding blog post, one point made is that LLMs tend to LARP big-project infrastructure on small projects. They use the resources for something like GNOME but they aren't actually GNOME so they don't have any excuse for it.
- inigyou 3mo ago
  Both. They noticed the high resource usage of LLMs and decided that LLMs, in general, aren't worth supporting.