The book claims it’s not written with the help of AI, but the content seems so blatantly AI-generated that I’m not sure what to conclude, unless the author is the guy OpenAI trained GPT-5 on:

> Learning Zig is not just about adding a language to your resume. It is about fundamentally changing how you think about software.

“Not just X - Y” constructions.

> By Chapter 61, you will not just know Zig; you will understand it deeply enough to teach others, contribute to the ecosystem, and build systems that reflect your complete mastery.

More not just X - Y constructions with parallelism.

Even the “not made with AI” banner seems AI generated! Note the 3 item parallelism.

> The Zigbook intentionally contains no AI-generated content—it is hand-written, carefully curated, and continuously updated to reflect the latest language features and best practices.

I don’t have anything against AI generated content. I’m just confused what’s going on here!

EDIT: after scanning the contents of the book itself I don’t believe it’s AI generated - perhaps it’s just the intro?

EDIT again: no, I’ve swung back to the camp of mostly AI generated. I would believe it if you told me the author wrote it by hand and then used AI to trim the style, but “no AI” seems hard to believe. The flow charts in particular stand out like a sore thumb - they just don’t have the kind of content a human would put in flow charts.

▲

finder83 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Every time I read things like this, it makes me think that AI was trained off of me. Using semicolons, utilizing classic writing patterns, and common use of compare and contrast are all examples of how they teach to write essays in high school and college. They're also all examples of how I think and have learned to communicate.

I'm not sure what to make of that either.

▲

johnfn 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

To be explicit, it’s not general hallmarks of good writing. It’s exactly two common constructions: not X but Y, and 3 items in parallel. These two pop up in extreme disproportion to normal “good writing”. Good writers know to save these tricks for when they really want to make a point.

▲

anon7000 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Most people aren’t great writers, though (including myself). I’d guess that if people find the “not X but Y” compelling, they’ll overuse it. Overusing some stylistic element is such a normal writing “mistake”. Unless they’re an extremely good writer with lots of tools in their toolbox. But that’s not most people.

	▲	johnfn 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I find the probability that a particular writer latches onto the exact same patterns that AI latches onto, and does not latch onto any of the patterns AI does not latch onto, to be quite low. Is it a 100% smoking gun? No. But it’s suspicious.

▲

finder83 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Interesting, I'll have to look for those.

▲

ummonk 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

But you didn't write that "Using semicolons, utilizing classic writing patterns, and common use of compare and contrast are not just examples of how they teach to write essays in high school and college; they're also all examples of how I think and have learned to communicate."

▲

rmonvfer 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I mean maybe the content is not AI generated (I wouldn’t say it is) but the website does have an AI generated smell to it. From the colors to the shapes, it looks like Sonnet or Opus definitely made some tweaks.

▲

geysersam 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Clearly your perception of what is AI generated is wrong. You can't tell something is AI generated only because it uses "not just X - Y" constructions. I mean, the reason AI text often uses it is because it's common in the training material. So of course you're going to see it everywhere.

▲

johnfn 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Find me some text from pre-AI that uses so many of these constructions in such close proximity if it’s really so easy - I don’t think you’ll have much luck. Good authors have many tactics in their rhetorical bag of tricks. They don’t just keep using the same one over and over.

▲

andyferris 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The style of marketing material was becoming SO heavily cargo-culted with telltale signs exactly like these in the leadup to LLMs.

Humans were learning the same patterns off each other. Such style advice has been floating around on e.g. LinkedIn for a while now. Just a couple years later, humans are (predictably) still doing it, even if the LLMs are now too.

We should be giving each other a bit of break. I'd personally be offended if someone thought I was a clanker.

	▲	9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

anon7000 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You’re completely right, but blogs on the internet are almost entirely not written by great authors. So that’s of no use when checking if something is AI generated.

▲

gamegoblin 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I sent the text through an AI detector with 0.1% false positive rate and it was highly confident the Zig book introduction was fully AI-written