You’re missing the whole point of these requirements.
Zig is, first and foremost, an educational platform. If you’re contributing AI generated content you’re taking an educational opportunity form someone and not really gaining any meaningful experience yourself either.
At least what the creator said in an interview.
It’s a good reason to ban AI contributions. I think there was a similar case with some math lib that made some noise a few months ago. Still, this policy is much broader: you cannot even use AI to fix grammar mistakes.
I’ve seen other takes of this in the comments and I’m inclined to agree with them.
I don’t believe the rules are as much about enforcement as they are about setting the tone. Yes, it seems very broad, but it’s much easier to point to a rule than to waste time arguing what is and is not a valid contribution.
The educational aspect isn’t the only thing no AI rules try to achieve. Denial of attention has become a real thing since LLMs were introduced, so having a strict no AI policy helps to save maintainer time.
Again this can be brought back to the educational argument: if a maintainer is spending time arguing about validity of AI contributions, they’re not sharing knowledge, but I’m not sure if that’s really the case in this particular instance.
I don’t believe the rules are as much about enforcement as they are about setting the tone.
so having a strict no AI policy helps to save maintainer time
I agree. I do think that AI can be useful, but if maintainers are overwhelmed by low-quality and mass-produced contributions, then it isn’t useful - it’s harmful.
Authors and maintainers of many open source tools that you use every day - whether that’s curl or linux with its army of developers - openly discuss the value LLMs bring. You either don’t care to listen or you choose to ignore their words because they contradict your beliefs.
Funnily enough, many people in the industry with years of experience and a strong reputation have a fairly balanced view of AI, recognizing both its advantages and disadvantages. Only on social media do you find people who blatantly deny any positive contributions (or folks who believe that AI is irreproachable, but you won’t find them on fedi).
To be fair, this is what bothers me more than the supposedly non-existent benefits, because I’ve seen LLMs being useful as tools, but the impact on environment is not clearly communicated (I’d wager it’s because no one wants to admit that it’s enormous). For that reason I’m trying to use local LLM instead, and it is more limited in usefulness but that’s fine by me as it’s not the only tool I have
It’s a resolution they’ve arrived after considering the benefits and downsides of that tool. Nukes can be used for efficient large-scale excavation, but people were sane enough to realize why nuking themselves was a horrible idea.
Considering only the benefits and not the risks and drawbacks of anything is not just reckless. It’s zealotry.
Why are you on fedi if you love the corpo slop machine so much? This platform was specifically made to get away from people like you. Go back to linkedin.
Not sure whether you’re being sarcastic here, but what about:
“Name a publicly traded company that generated significant profit as a result of buying llm services from a provider.”
I don’t think there is one. I hear about companies creating revenue (at a loss) and I hear tiny/private companies claiming it’s been a huge boon, but I haven’t seen one actually blow up.
“Name a publicly traded company that generated significant profit as a result of buying llm services from a provider.”
This at least is just a problem of relevance. Utility is not measured in money - especially for open-source non-profits like Zig - and people selling shovels and promises are obviously not the best place to look for success stories in mineral rights.
But I’ve seen several Youtube channels hand-wave complicated software for devices they’ve just built from scratch.
And several copyleft projects are caught in philosophical arguments against permissive rewrites with completely different code, structure, and/or programming language.
And a few ultra-niche projects simply typed “rewrite this in Rust” for an order-of-magnitude speed boost.
The kneejerk insistence that LLMs are never useful is wishful thinking. It’s less defensible than equally glib promises of institutional value, because even some of the people loudly distancing themselves do so because it worked. ‘I didn’t recognize my own codebase!’ Yeah, because you didn’t write it. The chatbot did. It’s not Inception-ing the experience of making it yourself; it’s inventing exactly the Github dead-end you’d like to find.
What’s wrong with it? Honestly it’s kinda refreshing.
That’s a complete disregard of a useful tool that brings measurable benefits.
You’re missing the whole point of these requirements.
Zig is, first and foremost, an educational platform. If you’re contributing AI generated content you’re taking an educational opportunity form someone and not really gaining any meaningful experience yourself either.
At least what the creator said in an interview.
It’s a good reason to ban AI contributions. I think there was a similar case with some math lib that made some noise a few months ago. Still, this policy is much broader: you cannot even use AI to fix grammar mistakes.
I’ve seen other takes of this in the comments and I’m inclined to agree with them.
I don’t believe the rules are as much about enforcement as they are about setting the tone. Yes, it seems very broad, but it’s much easier to point to a rule than to waste time arguing what is and is not a valid contribution.
The educational aspect isn’t the only thing no AI rules try to achieve. Denial of attention has become a real thing since LLMs were introduced, so having a strict no AI policy helps to save maintainer time.
Again this can be brought back to the educational argument: if a maintainer is spending time arguing about validity of AI contributions, they’re not sharing knowledge, but I’m not sure if that’s really the case in this particular instance.
I agree. I do think that AI can be useful, but if maintainers are overwhelmed by low-quality and mass-produced contributions, then it isn’t useful - it’s harmful.
Clearly they don’t find it useful.
Up to them. I only answered the question.
where are these measurable benefits? so far they haven’t really realized anywhere
Authors and maintainers of many open source tools that you use every day - whether that’s curl or linux with its army of developers - openly discuss the value LLMs bring. You either don’t care to listen or you choose to ignore their words because they contradict your beliefs.
Funnily enough, many people in the industry with years of experience and a strong reputation have a fairly balanced view of AI, recognizing both its advantages and disadvantages. Only on social media do you find people who blatantly deny any positive contributions (or folks who believe that AI is irreproachable, but you won’t find them on fedi).
Curl broke tho
There’s also huge downsides that everyone always seems to forget (enormous power/clean water usage, noise pollution, etc.)
To be fair, this is what bothers me more than the supposedly non-existent benefits, because I’ve seen LLMs being useful as tools, but the impact on environment is not clearly communicated (I’d wager it’s because no one wants to admit that it’s enormous). For that reason I’m trying to use local LLM instead, and it is more limited in usefulness but that’s fine by me as it’s not the only tool I have
It’s a resolution they’ve arrived after considering the benefits and downsides of that tool. Nukes can be used for efficient large-scale excavation, but people were sane enough to realize why nuking themselves was a horrible idea.
Considering only the benefits and not the risks and drawbacks of anything is not just reckless. It’s zealotry.
Nobody proposed to ignore risks, but okay, you wanted to win this argument - so you had to invent it.
Shhh, you’re not supposed to notice that on Lemmy.
Nah, be it AI psychosis or anti-AI psychosis - neither should dictate us what to say.
Why are you on fedi if you love the corpo slop machine so much? This platform was specifically made to get away from people like you. Go back to linkedin.
Don’t you think too much of yourself and your role here? Lmao. What a buffoon 😂
Name 1 great struggle that humanity suffers from that “Ai” has resolved.
A nice low bar, set fairly and in good faith.
Not sure whether you’re being sarcastic here, but what about:
“Name a publicly traded company that generated significant profit as a result of buying llm services from a provider.”
I don’t think there is one. I hear about companies creating revenue (at a loss) and I hear tiny/private companies claiming it’s been a huge boon, but I haven’t seen one actually blow up.
Jesus.
This at least is just a problem of relevance. Utility is not measured in money - especially for open-source non-profits like Zig - and people selling shovels and promises are obviously not the best place to look for success stories in mineral rights.
But I’ve seen several Youtube channels hand-wave complicated software for devices they’ve just built from scratch.
And several copyleft projects are caught in philosophical arguments against permissive rewrites with completely different code, structure, and/or programming language.
And a few ultra-niche projects simply typed “rewrite this in Rust” for an order-of-magnitude speed boost.
The kneejerk insistence that LLMs are never useful is wishful thinking. It’s less defensible than equally glib promises of institutional value, because even some of the people loudly distancing themselves do so because it worked. ‘I didn’t recognize my own codebase!’ Yeah, because you didn’t write it. The chatbot did. It’s not Inception-ing the experience of making it yourself; it’s inventing exactly the Github dead-end you’d like to find.
Downvoters have absolutely fucking nothing to say, but sure are mad about something they can’t defend.