5 ms·
LLM Policy for Rust Compiler
- DennisL123 5mo agoDoes the policy fix the issue of many low quality PRs being submitted? Unlikely. Will it fix a related but different problem? Likely.
- TazeTSchnitzel 5mo agoThe people who submit low quality LLM-generated PRs often don't bother to read the policies first, but at least it will be easier to reject those.
- saagarjha 5mo agoOk but what if their OpenClaw reads it for them
- def13 5mo agoThe point here if you read contributor comments is mainly to allow people to shut a PR down without having claims of “unfairness” because some other PR wasn’t shut down. These are “moderation policies” in the style of old internet forums, their primary purpose is to clear up ambiguity and make maintainer’s (moderators) lives easer. The birth of vibe coding has seen interactions on public FOSS projects increasingly reminiscent of the flame wars and moderator hammers of the old forum days. A lot of projects have been behind the curve on preparing and codifying the hammers, probably because no maintainer really wants to be a moderator, but thats where its naturally landed unfortunately.
- bcjdjsndon 5mo ago> probably because no maintainer really wants to be a moderator, but thats where its naturally landed unfortunately. Yeah this is autistic bunk. If you run an open source project, dealing with people is part and parcel of it, disagreements as well.
- jynelson 5mo ago[dead]
- jojomodding 5mo agoNot sure what is particularly autistic about the observation that "couldn't we just all get along" is unfortunately not how the world works even if we would like it to?
- afdbcreid 5mo agoWhile we surely hope that at least some people will read and honor the policy, of course we know not everyone will. But creating a policy gives us teeth. Currently sending such PR is not disallowed, provided it doesn't fall in the thin area of some previous policies about slop PRs. With this policy, doing it will be escalated to the moderation team. First time you'll get a warning, second time you'll be banned from the project.
- spprashant 5mo agoGithub just won't respond at all.
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- ares623 5mo agoOh no where is Bun gonna be ported to next?
- lifthrasiir 5mo agoNothing. You can always vibe-code in Rust even when the rust-lang/rust repository itself largely forbids vibe coding.
- voidhorse 5mo agoBut one of the reasons they switched was because the compiler upstream for the original language they used, Zig, wouldn't accept slop contributions they wanted to make for Bun perf. What will they do when they need to try to push a slop contribution upstream to rust? At this point they will probably just fork yet again and maintain some vibe compiler.
- whattheheckheck 5mo agoThey should make FullstackLang. It compiles English in .md to machine code that can directly run on the specialized hardware it designs for it that you have to 3d print at runtime. Every program gets its own custom hardware. Composability and reuse be damned. Pay the token masters for every thought you have
- ares623 5mo agoHuh. I wonder if the original intent was to merge an AI generated PR to a high-profile project like Zig. It makes the headlines and generates hype. But that went embarassingly bad for them so they had "port Bun to Rust" as a backup.
- noobermin 5mo agoIs there a citation for this? This was my suspicion but it's quite amazing if this was the actual reason for the bun spectacle
- 5mo ago
- 7e 5mo ago[flagged]
- giancarlostoro 5mo agoThe term scope creep comes to mind. Programming languages do not need to grow exponentially 24/7, its okay to let it grow slowly and stay mature and secure. If Rust were too bleeding edge, the safety promises would corrode over time. I think a better use of some of those PRs is to focus on crates as proof of concepts for things that could benefit Rust if it were included either in the standard library, or just available as a crate you can use for programmer ergonomic reasons.
- ares623 5mo agoWould love to see that happen, personally. All this power being held back by red tape. We need to unleash the beast. What do you think is stopping anyone from starting a fork right now? Is it a licensing issue?
- greenavocado 5mo agoAttention issue. They are desperate.
- voxl 5mo agoLLM delusion is insufferable. If all it takes is tokens to make a significantly better in programming language in logarithmic time why hasn't anyone done it?
- cornholio 5mo agoAs someone who's vibecoding my own self-hosted language (via a typescript to c++ transpiler and bootstrap), I can tell you mainline commercial models like Opus 4.7 aren't quite there yet. I'm getting 10KB source files balloon into 80MB outputs for now. The main problem is that the the problem space is vast and highly interconnected, the LLM needs to reason about the entire language every time it suggest an architectural change, but it can't, so it suggests local changes that make sense to me - a language hobbyist - then runs into much more difficult problems down the road. Maybe Mythos with a lot of (competent) human hand-holding and pre-design can do it.
- nmg 5mo ago> ## Other organizations > These are organized along a spectrum of AI friendliness, where top is least friendly, and bottom is most friendly. This section is an extremely useful reference
- dgellow 5mo ago[dead]
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- dryarzeg 5mo ago[flagged]
- saghm 5mo agoI feel like I saw phrasing like this pretty often even before LLMs were a thing
- jynelson 5mo agoi'm not a man.
- monkaiju 5mo agoThe thread is locked so I cant add it there, but if you wanted to jank-lang could be added to your prior-art section: https://github.com/jank-lang/jank?tab=contributing-ov-file#ai-assisted-contribution-policy https://github.com/jank-lang/jank?tab=contributing-ov-file#a...
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- mw888 5mo agoHere are the actual policies, not a comment: https://github.com/jyn514/rust-forge/blob/llm-policy/src/policies/llm-usage.md https://github.com/jyn514/rust-forge/blob/llm-policy/src/pol... It's in-line with the 'nanny' stereotype of the Rust community that they give you permission to act in a way they would never be able to verify anyways: > The following are allowed. > Asking an LLM questions about an existing codebase. > Asking an LLM to summarize comments on an issue, PR, or RFC... Like seriously, what's the point of explicitly allowing this? Imagine the opposite were true, you weren't allowed to do this - what would they do? Revert an update because the person later claimed they checked it with an LLM? The Linux policy on this is much superior and more sensible.
- kouteiheika 5mo ago> Like seriously, what's the point of explicitly allowing this? Imagine the opposite were true, you weren't allowed to do this - what would they do? Imagine if they just say "LLMs are banned" then there's a lot of ambiguity. So they specifically outlined that generative uses of LLMs are banned, and that non-generative ones are not banned (i.e. "allowed"). I think it's a poor choice of words on their part, but it makes sense (considering what their policy is). It's more of a "we're not disallowing use in these particular scenarios, so you can still use LLMs for these if you want". Remember: it's a big project, and if they don't explicitly state something then people will ask and waste everyone's time.
- saghm 5mo agoIf anything, it reads to me as a proactive rebuttal of complaints that they don't allow LLMs; they're definitively stating that they do allow using them for very specific purposes.
- bcjdjsndon 5mo agoNeeds to be "solicited" from a senior dev. How many requests for ai code do you think they will be making?
- classified 5mo agoThis is highly interesting. It seems clear to me that a lot of thought and work went into this. If I ever were to write a similar document, I'm sure I could learn a lot from this one. Props to the authors and all involved.
- prashantk_ 5mo agoOn a general note, I like vouch by mitchellh. > People must be vouched for before interacting with certain parts of a project (the exact parts are configurable to the project to enforce). https://github.com/mitchellh/vouch https://github.com/mitchellh/vouch I think many projects will adopt this instead of allowing everyone / blocking everyone Many projects have "ai slop" check in place to directly close and ban user if it is "ai slop". Else, it will be hard to handle the velocity of PRs
- Chris2048 5mo agoMaybe a network of ppl who can vouch they meet in real life? I don't know if having your name/ face a secret is still acceptable? Maybe tiers of devs (anon vs other) on that one?
- afdbcreid 5mo agoNote that there are currently several proposed policies (plus hundreds of discussions mostly in private channels), and frankly I'm not sure we'll ever reach a consensus (I'm a Rust project member).
- triyambakam 5mo agoSaying "LLM" now sounds dumb. Just say "model". Some are no longer "large" and that is arbitrary.
- staticassertion 5mo agoThis policy is straightforward and shouldn't be particularly controversial (I'm sure it will be bikeshedded to death though). It basically bans the obvious stuff ("don't just drop LLM generated comments onto PRs") and allows the important stuff like LLMs writing code so long as you disclose. edit: Wow people did not read the policy. It's literally just "if you use an LLM you are responsible for it, we will reject low quality PRs, please disclose that you have used an LLM". This is bog standard.
- WCSTombs 5mo agoSo...big caveat that this is still under review, so what we're talking about is a moving target, but based on what I can see, it seems considerably more nuanced than that. They basically ban LLM-authored code, with a careful carve-out to run an experiment to try to get only high-quality LLM PRs: > It's fine to use LLMs to answer questions, analyze, distill, refine, check, suggest, review. But not to create. > We carve out a space for "experimentation" to inform future revisions to this policy. Importantly, the LLM contributions must be solicited, i.e., the people responsible for reviewing the final implementation have to opt in explicitly beforehand.
- staticassertion 5mo agoI think that the only significant caveat here is the need for reviewers to opt in, otherwise it's effectively "you can do it if you are open about it and are responsible for the output". The only notable ask here that's different from other policies is "if it's an LLM, tell reviewers beforehand". TBH I think that makes no sense ("I have an LLM written PR ready, can I open it?") but yeah the policy is also in draft and has actually already changed since my first comment.
- dgellow 5mo agoThe discussion thread in the PR is also interesting to got through, lots of people concern in the HN discussion are already well discussed there
- singularity2001 5mo ago
- tick_tock_tick 5mo agoSome of these are just straight up unhinged. > Using an LLM to discover bugs, as long as you personally verify the bug, write it up yourself, and disclose that an LLM was used. What are they going to do go back and reject a bug if someone later admits they found it with an LLM? Honestly they and most other project would probably be better off just ignoring the situation until norms start developing.
- staticassertion 5mo agoWhat are you even talking about lol the policy doesn't imply that at all. That's in the "allowed with caveats" section. It's just saying to not open bug reports without first reading them yourself or your bug may be closed. No one is saying "by policy we will have to add the bug back in" jesus christ The policy is insanely straightforward, idk how you can be misinterpreting it this badly. It's just "Disclose that you use a model, you are on the hook for reviewing model output as a human" and then some clear cut examples.
- MallocVoidstar 5mo agoSee https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2025/07/14/death-by-a-thousand-slops/ https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2025/07/14/death-by-a-thousand-s...
- saagarjha 5mo agoThe assumption here is that people act in good faith. If you break the rules, this indicates that you are not acting in good faith, and perhaps should no longer be welcome.
- bcjdjsndon 5mo agoSounds very welcoming. I came here for the code, not to join some social club
- 3836293648 5mo agoThen don't go interact with the social club? If you want to interact with their project, follow their rules on their terms, otherwise just grab the binaries and don't stir things up.
- aabhay 5mo agoKudos to the team for this. I think it’s brave of them to stand up for their own experiences and push back against the hype train. Before you knee jerk hate on the team for being luddites, consider: 1. For a language like rust there’s too few eyes and too many mouths. Reviewing is a job, and is extremely taxing. 2. The code base needs to be highly hermetic because it’s load bearing across the global economy 3. Most changes are only relevant if they’ve followed extensive process, including community feedback.
- pixlmint 5mo agoI wonder what will happen once these guidelines end up in the LLM training datasets
- jynelson 5mo agoif an LLM says "I can't open a PR automatically until you solicit a review from a maintainer", i think that's good actually. likewise for proactively following the rest of the rules.
- bcjdjsndon 5mo agoIt's not the submitter who solicits, but the reviewer. They can't give code, AND THEN get approval, they need to be asked specifically for an llm created PR.
- jynelson 5mo agohttps://i.imgur.com/129TCNu.png https://i.imgur.com/129TCNu.png
- bcjdjsndon 5mo agoContent not viewable in I and I's region
- jynelson 5mo agoit says “that’s right” in bold red cursive font. i know what the policy says, i wrote it, you nincompoop.
- sergiopreira 5mo ago[dead]
- OptionOfT 5mo agoI like the 'better, but not faster' phrasing. I'm not gonna say no to some system that validates my code before I present it as a PR, and if said system (it being static checking, dynamic checking, or LLM), gives me a 'comment', I will interpret the output, validate, and decide whether to take action, and how. And maybe there I disagree a little with the proposal. It's me, it's my code. I stand behind it. But I get where the authors come from, and I believe it's a fine compromise. I think more importantly in the world of Software Engineering we're seeing a split. On one hand, people who go all-in on AI and take the output as 100% correct, copy-paste it as theirs without reviewing, prompt it to create PRs and submit them as-is, and worse, as their own. Then there is the other side, people who use AI as a tool to validate and go deeper. The problem with the first group that everywhere they feel entitled to shift the validation onus from themselves to the receipient of what they're sending, it being PR or review comment or message or whatever. In PRs now the repo maintainer has to do a lot more work, as they cannot rely on the social construct of "OptionOfT wrote this, they have 10+ years of experience in these and these systems, so we can look at the PR through that lens". Equally, I've been on the receiving end of AI PR comments (the PR was human-authored), but copy-pasted by humans, presenting the comment as their own, without properly (if anything) validating the correctness of the comment, or whether it actually makes sense for the PR. Lots of derailment there. This now increases the workload of the PR author, as above. We need to validate and cannot rely on the social construct. Is the comment even correct? What's the context? Why? Is it a hallucination? And the downside is that it looks like the first group is now going faster, but the second group is actually slowing down due to the increased burden.