| ▲ | abc42 2 hours ago |
| It looks like they're spending 5 months what should be a 1 month job these days. |
|
| ▲ | onlyrealcuzzo 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Filed a compiler bug related to dwarf tables that screws up debugging and line of code coverage that they completely ignored, just because I mentioned that I had every LLM check it to confirm it's a bug, since all I know is what kcov and every coverage tool generates incorrect coverage data for my repo, for 100% certain. |
| |
| ▲ | bendmorris 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Sounds like you violated the clearly stated project rules and admitted to it. Are you surprised that they're not engaging with you? | | |
| ▲ | giancarlostoro an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Reading their comment it sounds like they wanted to confirm the bug existed with AI, not sure they ever said they had AI write the code. Why have such a dumb policy? | |
| ▲ | unclad5968 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It's a violation of project rules to confirm bugs with AI? | | |
| ▲ | bendmorris 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Read it yourself: https://ziglang.org/code-of-conduct/ | | |
| ▲ | sigmar 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | >If you use a chatbot to give you advice on a comment on the issue tracker, that comment is unwelcome. >No LLMs for finding bugs. >No talking about use of chatbot/LLM services. I've said it before and I'll say it again- it's a cult that bans dissent | | |
| ▲ | tolerance an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > The Zig community is decentralized. Anyone is free to start and maintain their own community, which is not subject to these rules. | | | |
| ▲ | alexrp an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | For the record, there isn't even uniformity of thought on LLMs within the core team, let alone the broader Zig community. | | |
| ▲ | sigmar an hour ago | parent [-] | | If there's an edict that no one is allowed to bring up the topic, how can someone change this part of the code of conduct? Asking non-rhetorically. It seems like one position "ai in any circumstance = bad" is being enforced. The commenter above didn't even understand why he was ignored. | | |
| ▲ | alexrp an hour ago | parent [-] | | > If there's an edict that no one is allowed to bring up the topic, how can someone change this part of the code of conduct? To clarify, do you mean someone who isn't part of the core team? |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | jibalt 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yes ... pretty damn stupid. | |
| ▲ | cabaalis an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | "NO LLMs for finding bugs" is easier written as "Don't use the tools your adversaries will" I've written code a long time and that's probably the dumbest rule I've seen. |
| |
| ▲ | phoghed an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yeah, the maintainers of a DOA hobby project should certainly be allowed to run it however they want imo | |
| ▲ | saghm an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Pointing out something that is not good doesn't require surprise at the fact that it happened | |
| ▲ | IshKebab 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Wow I thought surely they wouldn't object to using AI to confirm bugs, but they really do. Tbf I guess as a popular open source project not using AI to fix bugs, they probably already have more open bugs than they can ever fix so it doesn't really help them for people to find more. I would imagine his bug was actually ignored just because Zig has 2700 open bugs, rather than some AI policy violation. | | |
| ▲ | bendmorris 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Claude Code has 13.4k open bugs: https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues Show me a popular open source project that doesn't have a large number of open issues and I'll show you one that has a triage bot auto-close them. | | | |
| ▲ | audunw 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | They don’t, at least not any more. Andrew Kelley has explicitly stated that he sees the value of using LLMs to uncover bugs. Inspired by sqllite project. https://youtu.be/zwi5b5xSsKA?is=PTjJJjSnVMdRuZag They may just be taking the slow route of rejecting by default until they can be sure that the usage of LLMs provides long term value. I don’t see anything wrong with that. If you’re writing robust software, using LLMs at this stage is a bit of a gamble. We don’t fully know the long term effects on code quality yet. | | |
| ▲ | saghm an hour ago | parent [-] | | Ah, so yet another language in the long line of "I'm smart enough to use this but you the user are not" | | |
| ▲ | Capricorn2481 8 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | This is because they got so many shit admissions from people using LLMs they were wasting time reviewing them. | |
| ▲ | unleaded an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Project maintainers know what level of AI use is acceptable for themselves, and quantifying it and enforcing it for random contributors is very difficult. |
|
| |
| ▲ | acedTrex 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The popular LLM projects have infinitely many more bugs than the zig project does this is a ridiculous message. |
|
| |
| ▲ | 0c3ca83 22 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If it's generating detectably incorrect code, why do you need an LLM to tell you it's a bug? | | |
| ▲ | onlyrealcuzzo a minute ago | parent [-] | | I need an LLM to reproduce it in 20 lines of code, not to tell me it's a bug. I'm not a Dwarf Table expert. It's pretty easy to look at coverage and see it saying that lines that are CLEARLY covered are marked not covered, and lines that are CLEARLY NOT covered are marked covered. It's less easy to pinpoint the exact reason, unless you're a low-level compiler engineer. |
| |
| ▲ | acedTrex 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > breaks the project rules > gets ignored Who could have forseen this. | |
| ▲ | doctorpangloss an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Their policy is immature. Clicking little upvote and downvote buttons is immature. Better to just lie and duplicate the issue. | | |
| ▲ | senderista an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Seems like "parallel construction" where you show you actually understand and can explain the issue independent of an LLM would be the way to go. No need to mention how you found the bug as long as you can explain what the bug is, why it matters, and how to repro. | |
| ▲ | bigstrat2003 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Lying to get around a project policy you disagree with is immature. They have the right to run things the way they want, either accept their rules or leave the project be. |
| |
| ▲ | UncleOxidant 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | If they really insist on no LLM involvement at all then they're going to fall behind and lose out. Your LLM use case seems really very conservative - you didn't write any code with it, you just use it to confirm the bug. There are many OSS projects that are also taking a similar hardline against LLMs - people are going to fork them and then move on. I've had LLMs fix bugs/add features to a couple of projects like this and, well, they're missing out on the fixes/added features that I'm using locally. | | |
| ▲ | 0c3ca83 20 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | People keep promising me that I'll be left behind, but somehow it never seems to happen. | |
| ▲ | acedTrex 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | They are doing fine, all this "left behind" talk has no basis other than cope. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | greggoB 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Can you offer any specifics? The ToC looks quite extensive, which to me indicates a lot of design decisions needed to be made (probably involving many people) and unclear how that process might be accelerated by AI. Unless you're suggesting the language design should also be vibed together? |
| |
| ▲ | nvme0n1p1 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Unless you're suggesting the language design should also be vibed together? Sounds like a fun little project, have a bunch of AI pushers fork Zig and see if they can do a better job. I want to see results, not snarky HN comments. After all this progress, ChatGPT should be able to one-shot a better language since AI is so good now... right? | | |
| ▲ | spankalee 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | One-shot, no, but there are a bunch of people pretty much solo-building their personal ideal language with AI and it's going quite well. You need to know just enough about language design to be dangerous, but you don't need to be a seasoned pro. I'm doing it myself: https://zena-lang.dev/ | | |
| ▲ | 0c3ca83 18 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | It seems like such a strange thing to do, building a language that you aren't going to write by hand. It's guaranteed to perform worse at higher cost, fill up a lot more of the context window, and burn a ton more reasoning tokens. If you're using AI, a language with a large training set is going to win. | |
| ▲ | Karrot_Kream 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Been thinking about doing this myself (did some PL in grad school but it's been a long time), but I find myself wanting to reach for a Scheme (using macros to grow the language I want) and customize it or build something atop Janet. Curious why you wanted a more ML / Rust / Scala inspired syntax. (Personal preference here is totally valid btw, just curious.) |
| |
| ▲ | agentultra 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Claude can’t one-shot a C compiler. None of these systems can. They need enormous training. They need alignment and reinforcement. They need harnesses. And most importantly they need a human that knows how to write and develop a C compiler. The ISO specifications are not sufficient. Neither are the System V guidelines. Not even spec tests and compcert. | |
| ▲ | UncleOxidant 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You're not going to one-shot it, but over the course of a couple of months of evenings you could come up with something usable/interesting if you manage the LLM well. | |
| ▲ | IshKebab 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Nobody is one-shotting big projects. Even humans can't do that. | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | dingdingdang 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Yep, it's true, but the reality of what it would take to actually fork and commence with healthy use of AI alongside with the elusive soft/hard stance needed to lead technically and socially is probably a bigger challenge than anyone is willing to take on! Soo.. slow and (rather?) well it goes for Zig. |
|
| ▲ | mg74 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Slow and steady wins the race |
| |
| ▲ | jibalt 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Parables aren't reality. | |
| ▲ | re-thc 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Anthropic levels of slowness (pacing)? | |
| ▲ | mathisfun123 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | in tech? really? | | |
| ▲ | combobyte an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Language design and implementation is much more in the realm of actual computer science than it is "tech" | |
| ▲ | Zak 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | In programming languages, usually. Building software on top of a rapidly-changing language is not often a recipe for success. | | | |
| ▲ | nvme0n1p1 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yes, the Lindy effect applies in tech too. |
| |
| ▲ | saghm an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | And apparently ignores legitimate compiler bugs on the way that someone happened to ask an LLM to double check their diagnosis |
|
