6 ms·
Makes me wonder why zig announced the strict LLM rule recently. I'm afraid one reason could be that zig doesn't want to accept code from the bun fork in the fir
by endospore 5mo ago
Makes me wonder why zig announced the strict LLM rule recently. I'm afraid one reason could be that zig doesn't want to accept code from the bun fork in the first place (because of LLM usage, deviation and other reasons)
- ai_critic 5mo agoIt's a combination of pragmatism (not wanting to wade through slop, not wanting to shove out newbie developers) and politics (usual contemporary techie progressive stuff that's now oddly anti-technology).
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- Onavo 5mo agoI like your username.
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- happymellon 5mo ago> usual contemporary techie progressive stuff that's now oddly anti-technology You can be against a particular technology without being "anti-technology". See DRM/surveillance/bad self driving implementations.
- wiseowise 5mo ago> usual contemporary techie progressive stuff that's now oddly anti-technology Just because a thing exists doesn’t mean you have to use it for everything. You don’t use asbestos blanket? Why are you so against asbestos?
- a96 5mo agoAgainst blankets would be even more like that argument.
- neomantra 5mo agoOne non-obvious reason is that an important aspect of their community is to shepherd new contributors [1]. LLMs crushing everything would reduce that. More obvious is all the toil for maintainers dealing with LLM PRs (broadly it’s an issue). The Zig maintainers prefer to put their energy into improving people and fostering those relationship. [1] https://kristoff.it/blog/contributor-poker-and-ai/ https://kristoff.it/blog/contributor-poker-and-ai/
- lowbloodsugar 5mo agoYeah, I remember when the lazy bastards started writing programs using compilers instead of learning assembly language. Now I don’t have a single colleague who can write assembly. There’s whole generations now who can’t code assembly. Most don’t even know what a register is. Hope Zig holds against this latest attempt to make everyone stupid.
- wtetzner 5mo agoUsing an LLM isn't analogous to using a higher level language.
- brabel 5mo agoThat’s funny because it’s exactly, literally the same. The difference is it’s not deterministic. That may be a problem but it’s still a higher level language, just a much higher level language than anything before.
- KingMob 5mo agoPossibly, but the Zig creator is active on Lobste.rs, where he's been vocally anti-LLM for a year now, so the timing could just be a coincidence.
- foresterre 5mo agoThere are other reasons why a project like Zig might not want to accept LLM generated contributions. Zig, as programming language, has a multiplier codebase. A bug may affect a significant larger portion of users than most libraries or binaries will, as it's a fundamental building block of everything that uses Zig. Just that could be worth the extra scrutiny on every individual commit. There's also the usual arguments: copyright ethics, environmental ethics and maintainer burden.
- esperent 5mo ago> has a multiplier codebase. A bug may affect a significant larger portion of users than most libraries or binaries will Couldn't you say exactly the same about bun?
- emaro 5mo agoSure, but Bun is now owned by a company who's entire shtick is creating AI models. That shifts priorities.
- mert-kurttutan 5mo agoIt might be one of the reasons they want to migrate to Rust, i.e. to handle many these memory related issues by the compiler. Personally I used bun on a very few personal instances. But if you check issue reports, you will see memory bugs being reported say more than deno.
- DeathArrow 5mo ago>Makes me wonder why zig announced the strict LLM rule recently. I guess there are 2 philosophies in software development: move fast and break things and move at a pace that guarantees everything is rock solid. Most commercial software, Anthropic included is taking the former path, while most infrastructure teams are taking the later. I guess Linux and FreeBSD kernels are also not accepting LLM based contributions yet.
- woodruffw 5mo ago> I guess Linux and FreeBSD kernels are also not accepting LLM based contributions yet. Both appear to be[1][2]. FreeBSD doesn't have a formal policy yet, but they appear to be leaning towards admitting some degree of LLM contribution. [1]: https://docs.kernel.org/process/coding-assistants.html https://docs.kernel.org/process/coding-assistants.html [2]: https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/will-freebsd-adopt-a-no-ai-policy-or-such.100101/ https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/will-freebsd-adopt-a-no-a...
- brabel 5mo ago> move fast and break things and move at a pace that guarantees everything is rock solid. Zig is famous for taking the former path! Anyone using Zig for a few years knows every release breaks things, and they are still making huge changes which I would classify as “moving fast”, like the recent IO changes!
- lukaslalinsky 5mo agoExactly, and Zig 0.16 is explicitly a release with known issues, just count the number of TODOs in the std.Io namespace.
- jeltz 5mo ago> I guess Linux and FreeBSD kernels are also not accepting LLM based contributions yet. PostgreSQL, a famously slow and rock solid project, accepts LLM-based contributions. But they are held to the same high standard, if you cannot explain the patch you submitted it likely get rejected.
- xydone 5mo agoThe LLM rule has been a thing for a very long time at this point.