Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pretty much sums up the LLM fanbase.
Not really - I imagine as with almost everything in life there's a normal distribution, in this case of the quality with which people use AI tools.
The Zig project's rationale for their anti-AI contribution policy
271–280 of 496 posts
Re: The Zig project's rationale for their anti-AI contribution policy
#272Re: The Zig project's rationale for their anti-AI contribution policy
#273Re: The Zig project's rationale for their anti-AI contribution policy
#274The problem with AI generated code is that the code the data model was trained on almost exclusively comes from public repositories. And there's a lot of repositories that are absolute dog $h!t or out dated. Crap in equals crap out.
Re: The Zig project's rationale for their anti-AI contribution policy
#275The funny thing LLM's are amazingly good with writing in Zig. They could inspect stdlib source code to fix compatibility issues with newer compilers and quite prolific with idioms. For example I got a working application with minimal prompt like "I need an X11 tray icon app showing battery charge level". BTW result: https://github.com/baverman/battray/ Now I'm trying to implement a full taskbar to replace bmpanel2. R…
Re: The Zig project's rationale for their anti-AI contribution policy
#276Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Would you let your nanny subcontract? edit: Can't reply because I've posted a whole 4 times. I believe we have different world views which is hardly a disagreement. Answering my question could pretty well highlight our difference of opinion.
Re: The Zig project's rationale for their anti-AI contribution policy
#277Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it's the complete fanbase. However, there are lots of people in the world who live their whole life by vibing. It's a viable way to live and sometimes it's the only way to live. But they have a very loose relationship with truth and reason. Programming was a domain that filtered out those people because they found it hard to succeed at it. LLM's have changed that and it's a huge problem. It's hard to kn…
"They may speed up the good programmers a little, but those people were able to program anyway without LLMs." I don't think this is realistic. I'm a good programmer, and it speeds up my work a lot , from "make sense of this 10 repo project I haven't worked on recently" to "for this next step I need a vpn multiplexer written in a language I don't use" to, yeah, "this 10k line patch lets me see parts of design space we…
Re: The Zig project's rationale for their anti-AI contribution policy
#278Earlier 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…
I’m not saying whether or not that’s good or bad. I agree with their approach, but that’s just my opinion and who am I to say what’s right or wrong? I think there’s value to LLMs as a tool to search and learn, but I’m also worried that LLMs make it really easy to focus on only the result and not the process. That process can be really valuable in building good teams, while LLMs can be really good at churning out an assembly line of code.
Re: The Zig project's rationale for their anti-AI contribution policy
#279Re: The Zig project's rationale for their anti-AI contribution policy
#280Earlier quoted context omitted.
LLMs are in this case enabling bad behavior, but open source software has always been vulnerable to this. Similarly, people who use LLMs to do this kind of thing are the kind of people who would have done it without LLMs but for the large effort it would have taken. We're just learning now how large that group is. This is a good thing, it's an opportunity to make open source development processes robust to this kind…
> LLMs are in this case enabling bad behavior Yeah that seems to be their primary use case, if I'm honest. It's possible to use them ethically and responsibly, much in the same way it's possible to write one's own code, and more broadly, do one's own work. Most people however, especially in our current cultural moment and with the perverse incentives our systems have created, are not incentivized to be ethical or res…
For example, using AI as an editor. It doesn't write anything for you and you try and avoid suggestions unless you're stuck.