Well, that's a good thing. Being "neutral" _is_ taking a side. It means you're taking an amoral stance even in big questions.
Every organization has a stance. We're just become used to companies that take a stance of "as long as we get paid".
Well, that's a good thing. Being "neutral" _is_ taking a side. It means you're taking an amoral stance even in big questions.
Every organization has a stance. We're just become used to companies that take a stance of "as long as we get paid".
No, being "neutral" is not "taking a side", that's the definition of the word. If you pre-moderate you open a whole can of worms. What will they ban next? This makes me not want to use Codeberg ever because it's not plannable.
If you're going to jump ship because they're banning AI slop, then I think the feature is working as intended.
Why do you think you can judge my code and how I program from a comment?
Calling all uses of such tooling "AI slop" right away shows your hand as only holding a blunt, crude, instrument.
Many of us are capable of more nuance that that and don't apply the label "slop" to everything where generative AI is involved. The linked Mastodon shows no nuance, and neither does your reply.
Two things can be true at once: GitHub has degraded into a "slop" cesspit and that agentic tooling has legitimate use cases.
Finally people can also legitimately object to a host mandating what tools can be used in authorship even if they don't particularly care for those tools themselves.