31–40 of 156 posts
Had a conversation with the Zigbook maintainer. It’s either a young kid or somebody that has some serious growing up to do. Just generally weird behavior.
Indeed: @zigbook changed the title "Fix license violations" "Im mad because you wrote code similiar to mine >:(" 3 minutes ago ( https://github.com/zigbook/zigbook/pull/43 )
I just can't get over how ridicioulus the "no ai" statement is. I really love the part where llm.txt has the same notice, something humans will never read, or the fact that llm.txt exists considering that there is distaste for AI in every part of this llm generated book.
"Not generated by AI" is something that every programmer everywhere is going to say about their own work, even when it's obviously AI generated. I've started to publicly call people out when I see they've posted something on social media (LinkedIn, etc.) when I see they've made an AI-generated post. The fraud has to stop.
https://github.com/Lillecarl/lix/commit/9ac72bbd0c7802ca83a9...
I'm not ashamed to use AI if it improves my output, people draw the line of "acceptable use" differently just like drug addicts talk shit about each other's drugs to justify their own. I think honesty is more important than cleanliness.
I just can't get over how ridicioulus the "no ai" statement is. I really love the part where llm.txt has the same notice, something humans will never read, or the fact that llm.txt exists considering that there is distaste for AI in every part of this llm generated book.
"Not generated by AI" is something that every programmer everywhere is going to say about their own work, even when it's obviously AI generated. I've started to publicly call people out when I see they've posted something on social media (LinkedIn, etc.) when I see they've made an AI-generated post. The fraud has to stop.
I just can't get over how ridicioulus the "no ai" statement is. I really love the part where llm.txt has the same notice, something humans will never read, or the fact that llm.txt exists considering that there is distaste for AI in every part of this llm generated book.
You don't have to. I'm sure there are lots of other communities that welcome low-effort slop with no effort put into it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Requesting attribution (as the MIT license demands), hardly rises to the level of "censorship"
I think they are referring to the fact that the zigbook maintainer defaced the PR that fixed the license issue by editing out the PR description.
I just can't get over how ridicioulus the "no ai" statement is. I really love the part where llm.txt has the same notice, something humans will never read, or the fact that llm.txt exists considering that there is distaste for AI in every part of this llm generated book.
"Not generated by AI" is something that every programmer everywhere is going to say about their own work, even when it's obviously AI generated. I've started to publicly call people out when I see they've posted something on social media (LinkedIn, etc.) when I see they've made an AI-generated post. The fraud has to stop.
The no AI devs will get a "needs improvement" report.
https://github.com/zigbook/zigbook/pull/45#issuecomment-3592... Would this be grounds to report zigbook to GitHub maybe? This is wild
Just your run off the mill AI grifter.
EDIT: https://lobste.rs/s/pbn3zy/zigbook_learn_zig_programming_lan...
"Quick research - author's actual profile is https://github.com/zk-evm, and he's a potential scammer from crypto spaces, who also happens to be running fake GitHub Organisation of the Cursor editor, along with related BuyMeACoffee claiming it being official page of the "Cursor AI Editor"."
Plagiarism is a moral wrong. But copyright infringement is a legal wrong (a civil liability). Is what they're doing infringing on a copyrighted work? Or does it fail to uphold license terms? Many open source licenses have some amount of attribution as a requirement, so that'd be something to consider.
Write a snail-mail letter to get the real sources. Repositories are private with a small well-vetted list of contributors. Also avoid slop-PR headaches that away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its the opposite in my understanding. Zig has a BDFL. Trademarks are the usual cudgel of choice to enforce a bad actor claiming to be part of offcial Zig.
But he isn’t. He’s just writing an AI slop book about Zig. Surely there’s nothing legally wrong with that? He never said it’s an official book or backed by the Zig project. The trademark cudgel is used on people who release an incompatible language that they insist on calling Zig, confusing people who want to try Zig. Or people who add malware to the Zig tool chain and try to distribute that. Trademark can’t be used…
Incorrect. Not honoring the attribution requirement in the MIT license is a copyright infringement because it violates the terms of the license, which are legally enforceable conditions.