A nitpick about website: the top progress bar is kind of distracting (high-constrast color with animation). It's also unnecessary because there is already scrollbar on the right side.
Open-source Zig book
141–150 of 426 posts
Re: Open-source Zig book
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's really hard to believe this isn't AI generated Case of a person who is relying on LLMs so much he cannot imagine doing something big by themselves.
it's not only the size - it was pushed all at once, anonymously, using text that highly resembles that of an AI. I still think that some of the text is AI generated. perhaps not the code, but the wording of the text just reeks of AI
> it was pushed all at once
For some of my projects I develop against my own private git server, then when I'm ready to go public, create a new git repo with a fully squashed history. My early commits are basically all `git commit -m "added stuff"`
Re: Open-source Zig book
#143So 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.
My statement refers to this claim: "I'm 99% sure this is written by an LLM."
The hypocrisy and entitlement mentality that prevails in this discussion is disgusting. My recommendation to the fellow below that he should write a book himself (instead of complaining) was even flagged, demonstrating once again the abuse of this feature to suppress other, completely legitimate opinions.
Re: Open-source Zig book
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pangram[1] flags the introduction as totally AI-written, which I also suspected for the same reasons you did [1] one of the only AI detectors that actually works, 99.9% accuracy, 0.1% false positive
Keep in mind that pangram flags many hand-written things as AI. > I just ran excerpts from two unpublished science fiction / speculative fiction short stories through it. Both came back as ai with 99.9% confidence. Both stories were written in 2013. > I've been doing some extensive testing in the last 24 hours and I can confidently say that I believe the 1 in 10,000 rate is bullshit. I've been an author for over a de…
Weird to me that nobody ever posts the actual alleged false positive text in these criticisms
I've yet to see a single real Pangram false positive that was provably published when it says it was, yet plenty such comments claiming they exist
Re: Open-source Zig book
#145> 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 think it's time to have a badge for non LLM content, and avoid the rest.
There is also Brainmade: https://brainmade.org/
The name seems odd to me, because I think it's fine to describe things as a digital brain, especially when the word brain doesn't only apply to humans but to organisms as simple as a 959 cell roundworm with 302 neurons.
Re: Open-source Zig book
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Most programming languages hide complexity from you—they abstract away memory management, mask control flow with implicit operations, and shield you from the machine beneath. This feels simple at first, but eventually you hit a wall. You need to understand why something is slow, where a crash happened, or how to squeeze every ounce of performance from your hardware. Suddenly, the abstractions that helped you get st…
The em dashes?
[deleted]
Re: Open-source Zig book
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why does it matter? Because AI gets things wrong, often, in ways that can be very difficult to catch. By their very nature LLMs write text that sounds plausible enough to bypass manual review (see https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2025/07/14/death-by-a-thousand-s... ), so some find it best to avoid using it at all when writing documentation.
But all those "it's AI posts" are about the prose and "style", not the actual content. So even if (and that is a big if) the text was written using the help of AI (and there are many valid reasons to use it, e.g. if you're not a native speaker) that does not mean the content was written from AI and thus contains AI mistakes. If it was so obviously written by AI then finding those mistakes should be easy?
The style is the easiest thing to catch for people; GP has said that the technical issues can be more difficult to find, especially in longer texts; there are times where it indeed are caught.
Passing even correct information through an LLM may or may not taint it; it may create sentences which on first glance are similar, but may have different, imprecise meaning - specific wording may be crucial in some cases. So if the style is under question, the content is as well. And if you can write the technically correct text at first, why would you put it through another step?
Re: Open-source Zig book
#148So many comments about the AI generation part. Why does it matter? If it’s good and accurate and helpful why do you care? That’s like saying you used a calculator to calculate your equations so I can’t trust you. I am just impressed by the quality and details and approach of it all. Nicely done (PS: I know nothing about systems programming and I have been writing code for 25 years)
Because site site explicitly says:
> 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.
If the site would have said something like "We use AI to clean up our prose, but it was all audited thoroughly by a human after", I wouldn't have an issue. Even better if they shared their prompts.
Re: Open-source Zig book
#149As someone who is diving deep into Zig, I’m actually going to evaluate all this (and compare this to Ziglings) or the Zig track on Exercism.
Re: Open-source Zig book
#150> 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 think it's time to have a badge for non LLM content, and avoid the rest.
There is also Brainmade: https://brainmade.org/
What's stopping AI made content from including this as well?