| ▲ | bendmorris a day ago |
| Sounds like you violated the clearly stated project rules and admitted to it. Are you surprised that they're not engaging with you? |
|
| ▲ | giancarlostoro a day 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 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It's a violation of project rules to confirm bugs with AI? |
| |
| ▲ | bendmorris a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Read it yourself: https://ziglang.org/code-of-conduct/ | | |
| ▲ | sigmar a day 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 | | |
| ▲ | B4uler5 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | The things you've quoted and your conclusion feel at odds. They just don't want AI contributions, and they, like a lot of the world, are bored of hearing about AI. Is it really too much to ask? | |
| ▲ | alexrp a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | For the record, there isn't even uniformity of thought on LLMs within the core team, let alone the broader Zig community. | | |
| ▲ | sigmar a day ago | parent | next [-] | | 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 a day 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? |
| |
| ▲ | kingcauchy a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Interesting to hear! We maintain the project Antfly (entirely zig) and have been nervous about bringing issues to the zig folks or asking questions because of our ai usage. We’re quite knowledgeable and thoughtful folks fwiw I think I’ve seen you are a core team member or contributor? I remember your tag? | | |
| ▲ | alexrp a day ago | parent [-] | | We simply ask that Zig bug reports be written by humans, for humans. Whether you use LLMs on your project is immaterial to us. Yes, I'm a core team member. | | |
| ▲ | kingcauchy a day ago | parent [-] | | Thanks for the clarification here! So for instance because of the size of our codebase our project has pushed Zig to some of the edges, specifically we end up hitting a bug when using llvm and zig on arm64 (Mac and Linux) where it seems to be caused by some configuration Zig passes through to LLVM. I’ve used codex and claude to help me diagnose and find the bug (we use nix’s glibc zig to circumvent the problem now). I now understand the root cause but am not sure what the proper fix would be. But I’ve not known whether or not even raising the issue would break the terms of contributing? Would raising the issue break the implicit agreement? | | |
| ▲ | alexrp 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | I would suggest just starting by filling out the bug report template, i.e. steps to reproduce, expected behavior, and observed behavior. If for some reason you can't provide a reasonable reproduction, the symptoms on their own can sometimes be enough for us to make an educated guess at what's going wrong. Regarding whether you should post the root cause analysis: Per the current policy, the answer would have to be no. I do personally have more nuanced thoughts on this, and I started typing them out... but then I realized that my reply was getting dangerously close to blog post length, so I decided to restrain myself and commit to turning it into an actual blog post later. In a nutshell, though, the problem is that even if there is such a thing as responsible use of LLMs for bug analysis, the only way we can currently be confident that someone possesses the required qualities for that is by working with them for a while. | | |
| ▲ | kingcauchy 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | I understand, maybe one day I'll have the chance to hear the blog posts' worth of thought on the matter! https://codeberg.org/ziglang/zig/issues/37060 I opened the issue and can give you the agent generated RCA on the matter if you all want it in issue 604 on antfly's github but I understand that's against policy and totally respect that. Appreciate all the work you guys do and have been following the whole Zig project since inception fwiw! |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | tolerance a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > The Zig community is decentralized. Anyone is free to start and maintain their own community, which is not subject to these rules. | | |
| ▲ | ternaryoperator a day ago | parent [-] | | The second part affirms that it is centralized. There is nothing wrong with that except saying that because you can leave the community and go elsewhere, it is ipso facto decentralized. | | |
| ▲ | tolerance a day ago | parent [-] | | I figure they're either using a loose interpretation of "decentralized" or an honest interpretation of "community". |
|
| |
| ▲ | kingcauchy a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I’ve not found the zig folks to ban dissent, they engage in a lot of thoughtful dialog. Just because they’ve made a different decision for how they take contributions than other people agree with doesn’t make them a cult? | |
| ▲ | vips7L 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The cult are the people forcing their LLM addiction on other people. | |
| ▲ | surgical_fire 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Not sure I see the problem there. Even in projects where I use LLM liberally, I would rather not read or have to engage with your LLM output. I use LLMs already, I can make do without yours. | | |
| ▲ | sigmar 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | >Even in projects where I use LLM liberally, I would rather not read or have to engage with your LLM output. I don't want to read LLM output on a project either. But you may have misread the quoted section, it isn't saying "you can't post LLM output," it is saying you can't ask an LLM to advise/critique your own comment before posting it. >>If you use a chatbot to give you advice on a comment on the issue tracker, that comment is unwelcome. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | jibalt a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yes ... pretty damn stupid. | |
| ▲ | cabaalis a day 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. | | |
| ▲ | nozzlegear 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | Can a programming language have an adversary? | | |
| ▲ | throwaway7356 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | Given all more modern programming language implementations include a standard library that will be attacked by people: yes. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | saghm a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Pointing out something that is not good doesn't require surprise at the fact that it happened |
|
| ▲ | IshKebab a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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 a day 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 a day 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. | | |
| ▲ | csande17 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | He sees the value of using LLMs... only after performing NASA-level verification and fully comprehensive fuzzing using traditional tools. Since Zig has not done those things, LLM-generated bugs are still banned. | |
| ▲ | saghm a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Ah, so yet another language in the long line of "I'm smart enough to use this but you the user are not" | | |
| ▲ | unleaded a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Project maintainers know what level of AI use is acceptable for themselves, and quantifying it and enforcing it for random contributors is very difficult. | |
| ▲ | Capricorn2481 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | This is because they got so many shit admissions from people using LLMs they were wasting time reviewing them. |
|
| |
| ▲ | acedTrex a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | The popular LLM projects have infinitely many more bugs than the zig project does this is a ridiculous message. |
|
|
| ▲ | phoghed a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Yeah, the maintainers of a DOA hobby project should certainly be allowed to run it however they want imo |
| |
| ▲ | miki123211 a day ago | parent [-] | | That's honestly my biggest problem with Zig. It's clearly a hobby project (constant breakages, the maintainer getting into politics, rejecting some safety mechanisms, the anti-LLM crusade, a strange focus on esoteric targets with little to no commercial significance), but the maintainer does not admit that it is a hobby project. It makes me respect the Rust community even more. |
|
