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

The Zig project's rationale for their anti-AI contribution policy

simonwillison.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 496 posts

Re: The Zig project's rationale for their anti-AI contribution policy

#381

Post by all2 »

0xffff2 wrote: post #367
all2 wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't you prevent pushing from the client side with pre-commit hooks? I would expect a hook to fire on the developer's computer that prevents them from even committing/pushing (unless they nuke the hook in their local repo copy).

You have to manually install hooks in your local repository. They aren't propagated as part of the repo. Git has intentionally made hooks require a very explicit opt-in.

Oh, good to know. I haven't used them much, so I'm a bit ignorant as to how they work in larger projects.

Re: The Zig project's rationale for their anti-AI contribution policy

#382

Post by krupan »

hansvm wrote: post #333
krupan wrote: post #306

This is the great disconnect in thinking around LLMs right now. You have people saying they are so amazing, why wouldn't you use them? But if they are so amazing, why are you mad when someone won't accept the code they produce? Just ask the LLM to duplicate that whole project! Oh, it's not actually that amazing of a tool? Hmmm The fact is, LLMs are incapable of invention and synthesizing new ideas. They can't contrib…

> The fact is, LLMs are incapable of invention and synthesizing new ideas. I don't think it's fully appreciated how much of the hard work of "synthesizing a new idea" is just combining existing ideas. LLMs have given me brand new algorithmic ideas with precious little in the way of a spark on my end to make that happen, and not just a few times either. Mind you, that workflow is arduous and involves a huge amount of…

That sounds like the AI did some brainstorming, so to speak, and you did the hard work. If I understand what you are saying

Re: The Zig project's rationale for their anti-AI contribution policy

#383

Post by LaGrange »

brabel wrote: post #183
LaGrange wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For at least the last 3 decades programming was a field that rewarded utter mediocrity with (relatively to other fields) massive remuneration. It has been filled with opportunists for as long as I remember.

You are talking about bad programmers who are at least able to fool their managers for at least several years. The people OP is talking about could not even do that and most likely would have dropped out in the first week trying to program full time since they just don’t have the aptitude and patience to get unblocked after their first compilation error. Now they can go very far with a LLM.

Thing is, it's not how incompetent they are, but the opportunism itself. The property I mentioned pulls in opportunists regardless of their competence. So eventually if you work in a field like this, you end up surrounded by them. There's always _some_ around you, of course, everywhere - but across time different fields tended to pull so many of them they would become suffocating to anyone who isn't one. And if you think you can interview your way out of this - an opportunist will often have an easier time to pass a harsh interview process than someone who cares.

IT isn't the only one - finance and law had the issue since forever, AFAIK - but now I'd rather be in a field that's _actively repellent_ to them.

Re: The Zig project's rationale for their anti-AI contribution policy

#384

Post by krupan »

umvi wrote: post #325
krupan wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still can't understand why people believe that this is the future. Especially for green field work like new compilers. LLMs do not invent new things. They cannot produce anything smarter/better than what they have been trained on. The big advantage they provide is producing (regurgitating) code faster than humans and better than less experienced/knowledgeable humans.

Ultimately code is an iterative refining process, like sculpting granite or spinning pottery. You start rough and iteratively shape and polish it. LLMs just rapidly speedup the iterative process. The next generation will be using LLMs to quickly setup the rough shape of new software and then iteratively refine them. The "smarter/better" attributes you are worried about LLMs not having happen between iterative steps,…

That was a lot of words to agree with me that LLMs don't invent new things

Re: The Zig project's rationale for their anti-AI contribution policy

#385

Post by mirpa »

SuperV1234 wrote: post #228
franktankbank wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because you are at the whims of the bot they are at least partially dependent on.

You could extend that argument to any tool used by the developer, like a linter, sanitizer, the IDE itself, or even auto-completion. Why target LLMs specifically? The more I think about it, the more nonsensical it is. - What if I do everything by hand, but have an LLM review my work at the very end? - What if I have an LLM guide me through the codebase just by specifying the files I should read and in what order, but…

Zig devs don't find LLMs to be net positive, what is so hard to understand? You can write your own compiler with LLM yourself, nobody is standing in your way.

Re: The Zig project's rationale for their anti-AI contribution policy

#386

Post by mirpa »

SuperV1234 wrote: post #377
slopinthebag wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you just link an AI chat in an internet comment because you were too lazy to both think of a reply and write one out? Lmao bro has completely outsourced their thinking to AI, this is comical

I'm glad you find it entertaining. Now read the actual points made by the AI with an open mind and a critical mindset, instead of dismissing them because they were not written by a human being. The point I'm making is that this policy is so stupid that even an LLM can easily figure out the logical flaws. Perhaps an LLM could have also helped you figure out the point of my original comment.

I red it and its terrible nonsense.

Re: The Zig project's rationale for their anti-AI contribution policy

#387

Post by zeeveener »

jmcqk6 wrote: post #320
zeeveener wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm personally amazed that _Large_ OSS projects don't have the appropriate automation in place to prevent non-compiling or non-linter-passing submissions. - Hooks (although there's no clean way to enforce they be "installed" on a clone), GHA Workflows (or their equivalents on other forges). This might be my bias showing, but these are items I would consider table-stakes for a project of a certain size / level of popu…

Those things cost resources, and now you're introducing a new attack vector: open up a bunch of shit PRs, burn a lot of cash for the target organization.

You're right. It doesn't solve for all scenarios and doesn't block malicious actors.

I do believe, however, that it would have a meaningful impact on the "drive-by" PRs that keep being used as examples; the thoughtless, throw-spaghetti-at-the-wall PRs that do not have malignant intent behind them.

Many large OSS projects would have the resources to eat that cost with Donors, Sponsors, and OSS hand-outs. That's why I clarified in my original post because I know this is not a general solution.

Re: The Zig project's rationale for their anti-AI contribution policy

#388

Post by matkoniecz »

porridgeraisin wrote: post #247
matkoniecz wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No one reads docs, or goes through tests. I regularly do both when trying to use library, especially unfamiliar to me.

Dare I say you're in the minority

Maybe, but still a counterexample.

Re: The Zig project's rationale for their anti-AI contribution policy

#389

Post by matkoniecz »

tovej wrote: post #373
porridgeraisin wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dare I say you're in the minority

I hope not. How else are you learning to use the library? The only other option is to read the source, which is also a good idea eventually, if something is unclear, but why would you _start_ there?

Ask LLM.

Re: The Zig project's rationale for their anti-AI contribution policy

#390

Post by em-bee »

SuperV1234 wrote: post #376
em-bee wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

linter, sanitizer, the IDE itself, or even auto-completion unlike LLMs, those are deterministic. the IDE doesn't even change the code. auto-completion only has a problem if it is done with AI.

What is the actual problem with the lack of determinism? Why is auto-completion a problem if it's done with AI?

it's in the definition of the word. you can not determine what the LLM will do.

anything done with AI is a problem because it is essentially unpredictable. auto-complete is on the fence because you presumably are still able to pay attention that it completes what you want but it depends on how diligent you are when working and how much i trust your diligence.

Post reply on HN