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

About LLMs at Zig Days

kristoff.it

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 90 posts

Re: About LLMs at Zig Days

#71

Post by robbiewxyz »

Joel_Mckay wrote: post #53
robbiewxyz wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This rephrasing is directly unhelpful to the goal of empathy for the humans caught in the change. If we come off as insensitive we will have no hope of influencing people. Also if you see a specific fallacy, please do name which one so I can improve. All that said, I personally unequivocally agree with each of your points. I hope you are channeling this rage not only into comments sections but also into the hard work…

"This rephrasing is directly unhelpful" is an Informal fallacy. One does not need to "unequivocally agree", as facts should be verifiable. =3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNSHZG9blQQ

Sorry to ask again but which informal fallacy does it seem to you that I am using in my first statement? There are several [0]. In the interest of understanding, maybe I can make my passive phrasing a bit more active: when I say "this rephrasing is directly unhelpful [to] empathy", I could also say "if I tended to use the phrasing you did I am confident I would find myself with a reputation for being unempathetic i.e. rude". If you disagree with the statement it'd be great to hear your argument, but again disagreement does not imply fallacy.

Your second statement strikes me as using two specific fallacies while also being severely out of touch. First, a moralistic fallacy [1] where you assert what facts "should" be while making a statement about what is or is not needed. Second, a false equivalence fallacy [2] where you imply without explanation that verifiability & not-needing-agreement are equivalent. I'm open to argument, but it seems to me that the two describe independently varying spaces: facts describing the space of reality with agreement describing alignment in the space of conviction. Finally, your overall statement is very strange to hear in the big 2026 when so many important & verifiable facts are so widely & disastrously disagreed upon. See the ongoing USA vaccine safety scare & measles outbreak as an example [3].

Finally, pointing to general & easily-accessible resources in response to a specific question is normally understood to be condescending & a form of insult. I'm not sure if you meant it that way but graciously declining to answer is almost always a better alternative.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_fallacy, see paragraph 2.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moralistic_fallacy#Moralistic_..., the last example specifically names should-is equivalency.

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measles_resurgence_in_the_Unit...

I hope to hear from you but either way this will be my last reply here.

Re: About LLMs at Zig Days

#72

Post by keybored »

codethief wrote: post #63
jdlshore wrote: post #4

For those who aren’t aware, as I wasn’t, this is coming from the “VP of Community” at the Zig Foundation. So the proposal to soft ban LLMs at Zig Day meetups seems like it has a bit more weight than if it was some random community member. (I’m not a member of the community, so not fully aware of the dynamics.)

I had the pleasure to talk to Loris about this topic just last week and I've liked his take very much. His point is not coming from a place of LLM demonization. He very much acknowledges their usefulness, especially in a business context, e.g. for implementing yet another standard CRUD application and for shipping all the other "average" (in quality) business features quickly. His point is a different one entirely: S…

Being negative against the utility of AI is sometimes besides the point or a strawman (don’t know about this instance). Only an idiot would argue that cars don’t have utility in cities and countrysides that are already paved over. Or that they are slower. Or that the train can get you from Bob’s to Burger Establishment with less walking. But they may want other things like more walkable cities and less mass extinction in a hundred years time.

No one needs to proclaim the utility of The Car before criticizing car culture.

This piece already says that all the clanker maximalism may be correct. shrugs Then it says that this get-together is for people who like programming. Even if the whirlwind of progress comes and takes their profession. Because then it could still be a hobby.

And this is too negative-against-AI for some people in this thread? Programming as a hobby? Okay, fine. Maybe we will have sold off all our RAM in a years time and the Government will have outlawed unassisted programming as too dangerous. The piece is too optimistic.

Re: About LLMs at Zig Days

#73

Post by altairprime »

embedding-shape wrote: post #45
sharperguy wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard to avoid the topic when it literally redefines what it means to create software. If I'm using it to create some piece of software, then I turn around and say "I wrote this" am I even being truthful? But if I'm trying to avoid mentioning LLMs what other wording could I use?

> It's hard to avoid the topic when it literally redefines what it means to create software. Say that the IDE also "redefined what it meant to create software" when it entered the ecosystem as an idea and product, does that mean every conversation, community meetup and thinking needs to consider the IDEs now? Probably not, then there is no more room for the other topics anymore.

Classically, this is when a large-sized BOF conference might form an “editors” committee, delegate the entire topic to it, and ask the committee to elect one presentation each day that the committee feels would be valued by the conference as a whole. It maintains the enthusiasm for those who truly value discussing that subtopic in detail, and it’s an effective tool for keeping evangelism and/or holy wars within a given group sect from sucking all the air out of the room for everyone else. (Modernily, subreddits are an expression of that exact same model, and remarkably effective at scale for that purpose.)

Re: About LLMs at Zig Days

#74

Post by skeledrew »

abalashov wrote: post #67
skeledrew wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given your example, how exactly would tomatoes be relevant to Python?

That's the point. They aren't.

A broken point, as LLMs on the other hand are very relevant to coding, which is done via programming languages. And it's use in other - particularly knowledge dependent - areas is rapidly exploding.

Re: About LLMs at Zig Days

#75

Post by Joel_Mckay »

robbiewxyz wrote: post #71
Joel_Mckay wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"This rephrasing is directly unhelpful" is an Informal fallacy. One does not need to "unequivocally agree", as facts should be verifiable. =3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNSHZG9blQQ

Sorry to ask again but which informal fallacy does it seem to you that I am using in my first statement? There are several [0]. In the interest of understanding, maybe I can make my passive phrasing a bit more active: when I say "this rephrasing is directly unhelpful [to] empathy", I could also say "if I tended to use the phrasing you did I am confident I would find myself with a reputation for being unempathetic i.e…

That is an unfortunate detractor, as I normally do hold well-reasoned arguments in high regard.

Generally, being flippant with others pAIn while ignoring their legitimate grievances is not kind. We should also not get emotional over discounted GPU hardware when the LLM bubble inevitably collapses. =3

Re: About LLMs at Zig Days

#76

Post by skeledrew »

altairprime wrote: post #69
skeledrew wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given your example, how exactly would tomatoes be relevant to Python?

Let me introduce you to the HomeAssistant gardening community, and note that the very first Dashboard screenshot shown opens with two separate entire beds of tomato plants: https://www.briandorey.com/post/pi-pico-lora-remote-soil-mon... If one is leading a Python (or a Zig!) meetup and has an aversive reaction to tomatoes, and said meetup has been all up about gardening for the past three events, it’s very plausible…

That's going pretty far out on a limb (hah!) to create some artificial relevance given the context. Meanwhile LLMs are easily relevant in almost every way that matters to programming languages, more than even IDEs.

Re: About LLMs at Zig Days

#77

Post by skeledrew »

nektro wrote: post #49
skeledrew wrote: post #42

Be interesting to see where Zig and ecosystem is in a few years with this general anti-LLM stance from it's core people. My guess is it'll just make it's way as a hobby language, left behind in the dust. Which is of course a perfectly fine thing for some.

> I would still recommend not putting all your eggs in one basket just yet because [..] there will still be some value in knowing how systems work, both to differentiate yourself from other developers career-wise, and as part of effective LLM steering. the thesis is that investing in your skills outside of LLMs pays dividends whether you decide to apply those skills to LLMs or not, plus spending time bonding with you…

>> there will still be some value in knowing how systems work, both to differentiate yourself from other developers career-wise, and as part of effective LLM steering.

That seems like a strawman to as I can't think of anyone making a reasonable argument against. After all we still have C and even Assembly developers out there, despite the many languages-that're-more-convenient that've sprouted since.

Re: About LLMs at Zig Days

#78

Post by potsandpans »

sigmar wrote: post #6

>My recommendation is also to not choose an extreme approach (e.g. by completely banning LLM-related discourse) unless you feel very strongly about it. Organizers are allowed to ban the mention of certain programming topics? I could understand if it was a topic that was adjacent to violence/harassment/sensitive stuff, but come on... are anti-AI groups becoming a cult?

> are anti-AI groups becoming a cult?

I would say that they're more becoming a vocal minority of intolerant people towards some ideas. Some have good reasons, others just love to be on the counter culture bandwagon.

I predict that we will soon have a group like PETA that is primarily anti ai. I also predict that we're going to have for some time a schism in the developer community, which we already see in hn today, but it will grow wider.

Re: About LLMs at Zig Days

#79

Post by altairprime »

skeledrew wrote: post #76
altairprime wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me introduce you to the HomeAssistant gardening community, and note that the very first Dashboard screenshot shown opens with two separate entire beds of tomato plants: https://www.briandorey.com/post/pi-pico-lora-remote-soil-mon... If one is leading a Python (or a Zig!) meetup and has an aversive reaction to tomatoes, and said meetup has been all up about gardening for the past three events, it’s very plausible…

That's going pretty far out on a limb (hah!) to create some artificial relevance given the context. Meanwhile LLMs are easily relevant in almost every way that matters to programming languages, more than even IDEs.

That doesn’t limit formation of a subcommittee to concentrate their discussion for the health of the group. Any topic is eligible based on group impact regardless of its perceived breadth by those avidly discussing it.

Re: About LLMs at Zig Days

#80

Post by altairprime »

altairprime wrote: post #79
skeledrew wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's going pretty far out on a limb (hah!) to create some artificial relevance given the context. Meanwhile LLMs are easily relevant in almost every way that matters to programming languages, more than even IDEs.

That doesn’t limit formation of a subcommittee to concentrate their discussion for the health of the group. Any topic is eligible based on group impact regardless of its perceived breadth by those avidly discussing it.

(There is no cabal.)
Post reply on HN