[SuperV1234]

https://claude.ai/share/f38ee8a6-56f1-408a-a536-211eb34c7045

I mostly agree with the assessment.

IMHO: hard, inflexible rules like these are always deeply rooted in biases and personal convictions, not in facts. The suggested policy amendment by Claude at the end is much more honest, logical, and palatable.

[bcrosby95]

This sounds fun. Here is my response:

https://claude.ai/share/abb3e667-252a-4b34-86f7-a064ba260d2a

This reminds me of something funny I noticed about AI. Let's say you ask it what it thinks of an email you just drafted. It will provide corrections.

Delete that session, and ask it about the corrected email. It will provide more corrections.

Repeat. It always provides more corrections. Sometimes returning the recommended email back to a previous state.

This is basically what's gonna happen when people argue-from-AI. It's the same cycle but because control is distributed the individuals participating can't see how stupidly pointless it is.

[cuu508]

> The argument assumes that unassisted PR authorship is what builds trustworthy contributors, and that LLM assistance prevents that growth.

No, I don't think that was the argument. As I understood it, unassisted contributions have higher chances to grow a trusted contributor. Not 100% vs 0% chances, but statistically higher. So, given limited resources, it makes sense to prefer unassisted over assisted contributions.

[SuperV1234]

I don't believe that even the weakened version of the argument works -- it is based on an assumption, not fact.

Why would a contributor that uses AI assistance have fewer chances to be trusted?

I'm not talking about AI slop, but a contributor that takes time to understand a problem, find a solution, and discuss pros/cons alternatives. Using LLM assistance, of course.

[em-bee]

Why would a contributor that uses AI assistance have fewer chances to be trusted?

please read my explanation here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47964279

[franktankbank]

Because you are at the whims of the bot they are at least partially dependent on.

[SuperV1234]

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 do all the reading myself? - What if I do everything by hand, but then use an LLM to optimize a small part of an algorithm?

You can easily see how absurd it is to completely ban LLMs.

What matters is the quality and correctness of the contribution. Even with heavy LLM usage, unless the developer understands what problem they're solving, the quality will be sub-par.

[franktankbank]

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.

[SuperV1234]

What point are you trying to make? Be explicit.

[em-bee]

linter, sanitizer, the IDE itself, or even auto-completion

unlike LLMs, those are deterministic. the IDE doesn't even change the code. auto-completion only has a problem if it is done with AI.

[SuperV1234]

What is the actual problem with the lack of determinism?

Why is auto-completion a problem if it's done with AI?

[mirpa]

Zig devs don't find LLMs to be net positive, what is so hard to understand? You can write your own compiler with LLM yourself, nobody is standing in your way.

[SuperV1234]

I understand that, I don't agree with the reasoning and I think it's illogical. Why am I not allowed to comment on it?

[pico303]

I think you’re missing the underlying point. The Zig team is focused on the contributor and their relationship to the project, not on the correctness of the work. People, not product. Yes, an LLM can help you better understand your code and pick up on things you may have missed before you submit your change. But I think they look at it as you’ve then robbed the Zig team of that interaction with the contributor. They lost the opportunity to learn about how that person thinks, and that person lost the opportunity to be mentored and learn from other members of the Zig team. Sure, your code is better, but did you or the team grow from the experience or simply churn out more code?

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.

[SuperV1234]

My claim that LLMs can benefit the end product and create quality contributions does not imply that the person behind the contribution is less capable/creative/smart than someone who doesn't use LLMs.

But it seems that the Zig policy implies that. Otherwise what would be wrong with interacting with contributors using LLMs?

[slopinthebag]

Did you just link an AI chat in an internet comment because you were too lazy to both think of a reply and write one out?

Lmao bro has completely outsourced their thinking to AI, this is comical

[SuperV1234]

I'm glad you find it entertaining.

Now read the actual points made by the AI with an open mind and a critical mindset, instead of dismissing them because they were not written by a human being.

The point I'm making is that this policy is so stupid that even an LLM can easily figure out the logical flaws. Perhaps an LLM could have also helped you figure out the point of my original comment.

[mirpa]

I red it and its terrible nonsense.

[SuperV1234]

It seems pretty solid to me. Where is the nonsense?

[mirpa]

Why don't you ask LLM?

[SuperV1234]

Why don't you stop avoiding the actual question? Or perhaps you have nothing of substance to add?