Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Open-source Zig book

zigbook.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 426 posts

Re: Open-source Zig book

#21

Post by maxbond »

Rochus wrote: post #6
jasonjmcghee wrote: post #2

So despite this... > The Zigbook intentionally contains no AI-generated content—it is hand-written, carefully curated, and continuously updated to reflect the latest language features and best practices. I just don't buy it. I'm 99% sure this is written by an LLM. Can the author... Convince me otherwise? > This journey begins with simplicity—the kind you encounter on the first day. By the end, you will discover a dif…

Who cares? Still better than just nagging.

Using AI to write is one thing, claiming you didn't when you did should be objectionable to everyone.

Re: Open-source Zig book

#22

Post by simonklee »

jasonjmcghee wrote: post #2

So despite this... > The Zigbook intentionally contains no AI-generated content—it is hand-written, carefully curated, and continuously updated to reflect the latest language features and best practices. I just don't buy it. I'm 99% sure this is written by an LLM. Can the author... Convince me otherwise? > This journey begins with simplicity—the kind you encounter on the first day. By the end, you will discover a dif…

It's just an odd claim to make when it feels very much like AI generated content + publish the text anonymously. It's obviously possible to write like this without AI, but I can't remember reading something like this that wasn't written by AI.

It doesn't take away from the fact that someone used a bunch of time and effort on this project.

Re: Open-source Zig book

#23

Post by popcar2 »

gamegoblin wrote: post #20
gigatexal wrote: post #8

there's no way someone made this for free, where do I donate? im gonna get so much value from this this feels like stealing

It's AI-written FWIW though maybe AI is getting to the point it can do stuff like this somewhat decently

The first page says none of the book was written by AI

Re: Open-source Zig book

#26

Post by Rochus »

maxbond wrote: post #21
Rochus wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who cares? Still better than just nagging.

Using AI to write is one thing, claiming you didn't when you did should be objectionable to everyone.

Who wants to be so petty.

I'm sure there are more interesting things to say about this book.

Re: Open-source Zig book

#27

Post by [deleted] »

jasonjmcghee wrote: post #2

So despite this... > The Zigbook intentionally contains no AI-generated content—it is hand-written, carefully curated, and continuously updated to reflect the latest language features and best practices. I just don't buy it. I'm 99% sure this is written by an LLM. Can the author... Convince me otherwise? > This journey begins with simplicity—the kind you encounter on the first day. By the end, you will discover a dif…

[deleted]

Re: Open-source Zig book

#28

Post by jasonjmcghee »

simonklee wrote: post #22
jasonjmcghee wrote: post #2

So despite this... > The Zigbook intentionally contains no AI-generated content—it is hand-written, carefully curated, and continuously updated to reflect the latest language features and best practices. I just don't buy it. I'm 99% sure this is written by an LLM. Can the author... Convince me otherwise? > This journey begins with simplicity—the kind you encounter on the first day. By the end, you will discover a dif…

It's just an odd claim to make when it feels very much like AI generated content + publish the text anonymously. It's obviously possible to write like this without AI, but I can't remember reading something like this that wasn't written by AI. It doesn't take away from the fact that someone used a bunch of time and effort on this project.

To be clear, I did not dismiss the project or question its value - simply questioned this claim as my experience tells me otherwise and they make a big deal out of it being human written and "No AI" in multiple places.

Re: Open-source Zig book

#29

Post by simonklee »

jasonjmcghee wrote: post #28
simonklee wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just an odd claim to make when it feels very much like AI generated content + publish the text anonymously. It's obviously possible to write like this without AI, but I can't remember reading something like this that wasn't written by AI. It doesn't take away from the fact that someone used a bunch of time and effort on this project.

To be clear, I did not dismiss the project or question its value - simply questioned this claim as my experience tells me otherwise and they make a big deal out of it being human written and "No AI" in multiple places.

I agree with you. After reading a couple of the chapters I'd be surprised if this wasn't written by an LLM.

Re: Open-source Zig book

#30

Post by maxbond »

PaulRobinson wrote: post #5
jasonjmcghee wrote: post #2

So despite this... > The Zigbook intentionally contains no AI-generated content—it is hand-written, carefully curated, and continuously updated to reflect the latest language features and best practices. I just don't buy it. I'm 99% sure this is written by an LLM. Can the author... Convince me otherwise? > This journey begins with simplicity—the kind you encounter on the first day. By the end, you will discover a dif…

You can't just say that a linguistic style "proves" or even "suggests" AI. Remember, AI is just spitting out things its seen before elsewhere. There's plenty of other texts I've seen with this sort of writing style, written long before AI was around. Can I also ask: so what if it is or it isn't? While AI slop is infuriating, and the bubble hype is maddening, I'm not sure every time somebody sees some content they don…

You can be skeptical of anything but I think it's silly to say that these "Not just A, but B" constructions don't strongly suggest that it's generated text.

As to why it matters, doesn't it matter when people lie? Aren't you worried about the veracity of the text if it's not only generated but was presented otherwise? That wouldn't erode your trust that the author reviewed the text and corrected any hallucinations even by an iota?

Post reply on HN