Hacker News Reader

Comment by aurareturn | Hacker News Reader

People who migrate away from Github, what makes you think they're more reliable? All Git services are prone to massive surges in commit volume due to AI agents. At least if Github goes down, your boss is not going to blame you.

I'd rather stay in Github and maybe use another service purely as backup.

View on HN

> All Git services are prone to massive surges in commit volume due to AI agents.

You are probably wrong on that.

> You must not share projects that mostly consist of code written by "generative AI"-tools (including services such as Claude, OpenAI Codex). Such projects having an unclear copyright status (see requirements § 2 (1) 1 and § 2 (1) 3) and furthermore have little safeguards to ensure that they do not include harmful code (c.f. § 2 (1) 5).

https://codeberg.org/codeberg/org/src/branch/main/TermsOfUse...

  You are probably wrong on that.

I don't think I'm. If another Git service gets popular, they too will experience surges and go down often.

If Github truly becomes unreliable and people migrate to this niche service en mass, they'll ignore their no AI coding policy.

You missed the rest of the comment, which was to the effect that such AI agents are not allowed on Codeberg. Any abuse at scale will be easily detected and banned.

How would they know?

Are they going to ban your account based on an algorithm? Are they going to personally check your code? Are they going to scan your code base for AI generated code? How do they define “mostly”?

These seem like insane policies to have a critical business dependent on.

Not only that, their uptimes are still worse than GitHub.

I said any abuse at scale. Very good heuristics are quite straightforward, you can then manually check those that are less reliable.

Manually check? What? You want their staff to check your company's secret code and see if any line was written by Claude?

Come on man.

Heuristics are never 100%. Even a 0.001% error rate is simply unacceptable to businesses.

Imagine being that business that gets banned because their heuristics mistaken you for using AI coding agents.

PS. AI writing code does not have to be in scale. It's not easy to detect.

We’re talking about Codeberg. “Your company’s secret code” is not welcome there.

Codeberg specifically has a policy against projects that are maintained heavily with AI tooling, so I don't think they would have that problem.

Their uptime's not exactly great either though:

https://status.codeberg.org/status/codeberg

Which funny enough is lesser than Github: https://www.githubstatus.com/

I'd much rather stay with Github than a small provider.

Their terms of service forbid AI agents or even AI created code to be submitted there.

How would they know?

Detect it using an algorithm and automatically ban your business account?

Do people not see how insane that policy is?

I sometimes wonder if any vibe coder has ever coded something manually again.

The world is changing too fast for our laws to adapt. Not to mention for us to adapt.

> I'd rather stay in Github and maybe use another service purely as backup.

Swap those two and you're on the right track. I think the best way to use GH is as a mirror for a self-hosted git instance, with or without web frontend. It gives you the reach of GH with the, dare I say it, reliability of self-hosted. It also gives you the chance to keep things off GH which you don't want to be there. Keep the self-hosted instance private for most things, use GH links for public access. When GH is down again you can always give people (temporary) access to your self-hosted instance if the need arrives.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com