The linked reference said:

> The maturity of Vim9 script's modern constructs is now being leveraged by advanced AI development tools. Contributor Yegappan Lakshmanan recently demonstrated the efficacy of these new features through two projects generated using GitHub Copilot

https://www.vim.org/vim-9.2-released.php#:~:text=The%20matur...

I am not sure I understand the author's concern, is he saying that VIM 9.2 is problematic because it enables AI integration due to the maturity of Vim9 script?

▲

cldellow 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Buried (IMO) in the post is:

> sadly even Vim now comes under scrutiny in that effort as both Vim and NeoVim are relying on LLMs to develop the software.

...where he links to a comment in a closed issue where someone accuses a contributor of using an LLM to generate patches: https://github.com/vim/vim/issues/18800#issuecomment-3568099...

The tl;dr: Drew thinks Vim development has been tainted by LLM contributions, and is thus morally unsuitable to be used, and he will therefore be forking it.

▲

tovej 6 hours ago | parent [-]

I think it's more fair to say that someone shows that a contributor has started to commit much more frequently and constantly breaking things, and that this corresponds to when they have started (self-reportedly) using LLM's for development.

	▲	cldellow 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Fair enough - my initial comment talked about quality, but I realized that was my own take on the situation. I had revised the comment because I think I now understand Drew's chief complaint to be about the moral side of LLM usage, not the practical quality side of LLM usage. He does use the word "slop" which implicates quality, but that's a single word in his essay, versus whole paragraphs about the moral questions of LLM usage and his stated reason that the fork was "to keep my conscience clear".