140
SourceHut joins Codeberg in limiting the use of AI on their platform. (sourcehut.org)
submitted 2 months ago by to c/opensource@lemmy.ml
11 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The new terms of service, which will go into effect for new projects after the usual two week notice period (i.e. September 10th), will now include the following under the list of prohibited content:

  • original content written with or which facilitates the use of LLMs (large language models) or other generative AI technologies

The use of LLMs or other generative AI tools to produce or assist with the production of source code, assets, tickets, emails, and so on, will no longer be permitted on SourceHut once these terms take effect.

all 11 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 16 points 2 months ago* (7 children)

The point of rules isn't to enforce them actively, it's to prevent unwanted behavior. If you are upset at this decision, ask why would people not want AI-in-the-loop content not on their platform.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    Why would people not want AI-in-the-loop content not on their platform?

    AI boosted my research speed a lot. I am much more efficient than a couple of years ago.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [+] 6 points 2 months ago (5 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (4 children)

    I don't drive an SUV. I don't play computer games or create long ai videos. I don't mine bitcoins. I don't eat meat. I don't have a yacht.

    I use efficient open weight models. Not the latest, biggest, most sofisticated models but they are good enough. Very little impact on the environment.

    I don't think that my llms usage is bad for the environment.

    I am more efficient. Ai has improved my life and thus the lifes of the people around me. I don't need a study to know that my life is better with it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

    I don't know what kind of research you do personally, but for me, even purely for learning, AI is a total negative. Google and duckduckgo have essentially become unreliable. I can get "answers" to every question on earth so to speak, but I have no chance of knowing whether it's correct, except if I already happen to be an expert in the area. That is somewhat offset by the fact that AI does good search and information retrieval if I can later verify for correctness. Also for learning, sometimes I can throw code/info at AI and it may do a pretty good job at analysis, which may help facilitating learning ("research"?). But the total, especially for research, is a solid, solid negative.

    And then I remember all the problems that are currently attached to AI, and.... Yeah. Good job SourceHut for focusing on one problem at a time, and the problem now being to continue to provide reliable code hosting and development services.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (2 children)

    Fully agree on the part that you can only judge the output if you know enough about the topic.

    I may not trust an llm to convert data but I can let it write a tool that converts data. I can let it write tests and documentation for it.

    I can let it do things that I know how to do it myself but of which I am too lazy to do so or simply because it is faster than I am. It doesn't need to be perfect. I can let it do a job and correct the job. I can adjust it and let it/me learn from its mistakes.

    I don't have a fully automated ai factory but I am more efficient. I can write pseudo code or instructions and let the ai handle the rest.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    I think I can understand, especially if I categorize it as "data analysis" in my brain (could be the wrong terminology though, I'm not an expert). Possibly as part of a bigger actual research.

    I agree that it's helpful there. It's probably also niche enough that AI-written websites don't create 10 articles for every 1 legitimate as otherwise happens in 95% rest of the internet. You're in a lucky spot.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    original content written with or which facilitates the use of LLMs (large language models) or other generative AI technologies

    I feel that this becomes very restrictive.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago*

    i mean the rules are there to explain and justify why they remove things, i sincerely doubt they actually intend to nuke anything that can theoretically facilitate the use of LLMs.

    They just need to rewrite that bit to communicate what they actually meant.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent