>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

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 16 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.