AI-generated code not welcome? Codeberg's unconventional declaration

Imagine this: you have a workshop filled with furniture you crafted with great care, but one day, thousands of identical chairs mass-produced by machines start pouring in. While machine-made chairs might be faster and cheaper to produce, the unique craftsmanship and artisanal spirit of your workshop would be hard to find. The debate recently unfolding in the software development community ‘Codeberg’ is exactly like this.

Codeberg recently proposed a Terms of Use amendment to prohibit ‘LLM-extrusions’—clumps of code indiscriminately generated by Large Language Models (LLMs), which are AI technologies that learn from vast datasets to generate text or code. This is an unconventional declaration: they intend to ban projects where the AI has created most of the work, going beyond simply receiving AI assistance. Why would Codeberg, a non-profit development platform, take such a drastic measure?

Why does this matter?

This news poses an important question not only to developers but to everyone in an era where AI technology has deeply integrated into our daily lives: “To what extent should we recognize AI-generated creations as human achievements?”

Codeberg is a sizable software community, boasting over 220,000 projects and 150,000 users as of 2025 [Source 5]. That they would classify AI-generated content in the same prohibited category as ‘hate speech or the promotion of violence’ is a strong signal that they view AI with caution beyond it being a simple tool [Source 2]. If the ‘code’ (instructions executed by computers) that serves as the foundation for the apps and services we use every day is all created by AI, who can take responsibility for its safety and accountability?

Easy understanding: What is ‘LLM-extrusion’?

Simply put, ‘LLM-extrusion’ refers to chunks of code that AI has squeezed out indiscriminately, like toothpaste from a tube.

To use an analogy: when a chef uses AI to check a recipe or analyze the nutritional content of ingredients while cooking, it is ‘assistance.’ But what if, without a chef, an AI cooked 100 servings of frozen food in one minute and served it at a restaurant? It would be difficult to capture the chef’s philosophy or the depth of flavor. Likewise, code generated by entering a few commands into an AI, without the human developer undergoing the process of understanding the code’s structure and thinking logically, is bound to have lower value and quality as software.

The amendment proposed by Codeberg contributors ‘gedankenstuecke’ and board member ‘Gusted’ is intended to prevent this ‘thoughtless code generation’ from degrading the quality of the platform [Source 2].

Current situation: How is the community reacting?

Opinions among developers are divided regarding this proposal.

Some developers welcome Codeberg’s decision, arguing that the efforts of human developers must be respected. In fact, famous projects like ‘Zig’ have already migrated to Codeberg in opposition to GitHub’s enterprise-focused AI strategy [Source 4].

On the other hand, some criticize the measure as being overly narrow. Technology is advancing rapidly, and in the near future, all code will likely be written with the help of AI. There are concerns that as AI reaches a point where it fixes bugs and writes more efficient code faster than humans, such regulations could become outdated [Source 3].

What will happen next?

Codeberg’s move is likely not a temporary phenomenon but the beginning of the massive labor pains that the software ecosystem will undergo in the AI era.

Going forward, we must contemplate two aspects together:

1. Technical efficiency: How to secure the ability to write code faster and more safely by utilizing AI [Source 1].
2. Human creativity: What unique value and sense of responsibility human developers can possess in the AI era.

We will have to watch how Codeberg actually applies this policy and whether other communities follow suit or propose different alternatives.

Where do we stand?

In an era where AI expands human capabilities, ‘how you thought to create it’ is becoming more important than ‘what you created.’ We face the task of proving not just the production of results, but the human logic and philosophy contained in that process.

The AI’s perspective

As technology advances, I find myself rethinking the essence of ‘creation.’ Codeberg’s recent measure can be read as a type of defense mechanism to protect the value of human contemplation inherent in the act of development, rather than simply an attempt to block technology. In a world where efficiency is not everything, this is a moment when we must seriously consider how humans and AI can harmoniously coexist within their respective domains.

References

1. [Codeberg Bans Vibe-Coded Projects: ToU Explained

   explainx](https://www.explainx.ai/blog/codeberg-bans-vibe-coded-projects-llm-tou-2026)

2. [Codeberg: ToU extension to prohibit LLM-extrusions

   Hacker News](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49003465)

3. [Codeberg prohíbe código IA: qué significa para tu startup en 2026

   ecosistemastartup.com](https://ecosistemastartup.com/codeberg-prohibe-codigo-ia-que-significa-para-tu-startup-en-2026/)

4. [Zig migrates from GitHub to Codeberg amid CI concerns and AI backlash

   windowsforum.com](https://windowsforum.com/threads/zig-migrates-from-github-to-codeberg-amid-ci-concerns-and-ai-backlash.391770/)

5. [[Tech] 2026-03-20 Technology Trends: LLM

   Gyu Hwan](https://sghman.github.io/posts/2026-03-20-llm-digest/)