>> although participating developers felt they completed tasks faster using AI, they where around 19% slower
> Maybe that was true in 2025, but it's clearly not true any more - I feel so productive now!
Even if you are right, this is a completely baseless argument. The people in the study felt the exact same way! And "it's 6 months old, so I won't listen to it" is an insanely high standard. You're eliminating all the evidence!
This deduction is baseless, there is no reason to think an LLM will only hallucinate on complex topics. They still get the "number of es in seventeen" question wrong regularly. The kind of mistakes an LLM makes has no clear resemblance to the kind of mistakes a human makes, because they are not doing the same thing.
I expected this to go for a long time. It's the only way to anonymously browse 18+ subreddits. I would not be surprised if reddit accounts are effectively (if not always) connectable to a legal identity.
They are unable to be more clear, because the law is unclear. The safe assumption would be "if the code would be copyrightable, had it been written by a human, then it must have been written by a human". It is impossible to be more clear than this, because "copyrightable" is a legal term of art decided by judges.
I don't think this is a bad-faith response. Someone might fully retain copyright while using heavy autocomplete. I don't think such a person would be banned by the codeberg policy. This is at least a little bit unintuitive.
If this opens more questions than it answers, then you are simply discovering that you don't understand copyright (which is ok, but not the fault of the Codeberg policy).
> You must not share projects that mostly consist [of LLM-generated code]
> Such projects having an unclear copyright status
There is no bright-line threshold at which a code contribution becomes copyrightable (and therefore relevant). It is a legal question determined by courts. However, nobody in practice has any difficulty determining whether their code is copyrightable.
Codeberg is essentially asking/demanding that "your code" coincides with "code you hold the copyright for". This responsibility can be delegated to other humans, but not to LLMs.
> So the whole world needs to pay (spend more) to accommodate to your problem?
Yes.
> What next? You don't have legs so everyone around you must carry you?
Too stupid to engage with.
Obviously society has to accommodate (i.e. spend money for) people who are disabled or unable to interact with it due to inalienable features of their body. Anything other than that is just cruel.
In the spirit of fairness I have to note the untold deaths caused by non-socialist countries in Cambodia, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, pretty much every country in South America...
Does it count if you have to pay for a service for something to be made accessible? I'm sure a blind person nowadays could hire an assistant to use their computer for them, but that would not be reasonable.