The Zig programming language has updated its code of conduct to ban LLM-generated code, vulnerability research, text-generation, and about anything AI at all

[eestileib@tech.lgbt]

@corpsmoderne @johan_andersson @campuscodi

Rust has lisp-sized social problems as far as I can tell.

[theeclecticdyslexic@mstdn.social]

@campuscodi Ya, this is it... the bottleneck isn't how many merge requests they get, it's their ability to review them. Every merde request (not a typo) is time taken away from actually developing zig.

I don't see why so many other projects haven't figured this out yet. We don't need more merde requests for, we need to be able to read the merge requests we do get.

Banning AI is a crude way to do this, but unless someone wants to start paying for armies of reviewers to sort the slop...

[chazh@mastodon.social]

@johan_andersson @chebra It’s even funnier if you look at it as “Anthropic, the AI company that owns Bun, are desperately trying to get rid of a dependency on a language that puts limits on contributions that use AI.” Or it may be marketing genius if they actually pull it off, I don’t know.

[blindy@convo.casa]

@campuscodi Pretty sure that GitHub will probably do the same thing soon or later.

[gryphonmyers@mastodon.social]

@campuscodi They've had a no-AI policy for quite some time. Did anything about the policy change, or is it just getting more coverage because of the interview?

[sythys@chaos.social]

@campuscodi I guess I learn zig.

[beggarmidas@mastodon.social]

@campuscodi May not be a wise move on the vulnerability scanning. That's almost certainly gonna come back to bite him on his butt.

[malin@dice.camp]

@campuscodi
The language is so safe you can't even read an article about it.

[azuaron@cyberpunk.lol]

@campuscodi Bun--acquired by Anthropic--just had a huge, ridiculous PR opened to switch from Zig to Rust.

Perhaps Anthropic tried to purchase Zig, and was told to pound sand?

[azuaron@cyberpunk.lol]

@theeclecticdyslexic @campuscodi Oh, no, what you're supposed to do is have the slop machines review the PR.

I'm not joking. That's literal the thought process.

[dalias@hachyderm.io]

@campuscodi I love how the domain it's dealt with in is code of conduct.

[tris@chaos.social]

@campuscodi Do the same for horse64 @ell1e

[ell1e@hachyderm.io]

@tris @campuscodi if you have a proposal of how this should be expanded, let me know: https://horse64.org/docs/How%20to%20Contribute#why-ai-contributions-are-not-allowed

[laund@wetdry.world]

@eestileib @corpsmoderne @johan_andersson @campuscodi what does that mean?

Both "what does it mean for a (social?) problem to be lisp-sized" and "what did you want to communicate with that post"?

[zygoon@fosstodon.org]

@campuscodi next they will ban anyone using Dvorak to make patches.

[mason@partychickens.net]

@campuscodi This got me curious, so I looked at GCC and clang. GCC is still working on it:

working-group-ai-policy - GCC Wiki

(gcc.gnu.org)

LLVM allows slop, which disappointed me, even if they include language which suggests that the contributor should be accountable for the code:

LLVM AI Tool Use Policy — LLVM 23.0.0git documentation

(llvm.org)

I wonder how the complete lack of clarity around slop contributions is acceptable to the projects.

[srazkvt@tech.lgbt]

@johan_andersson @campuscodi could you not spam hashtags inside your message ? this really messes up the flow with screen readers, making your posts less accessible

also that change was before bun got "rewritten" in rust

[dag@chaos.social]

@campuscodi lol - a Programming language that bans vulnerability research … says it all.

[datenwolf@chaos.social]

@dag @campuscodi

Where the heck did you read *that*?

[datenwolf@chaos.social]

@Beggarmidas @campuscodi

About that… ask the cURL developers how well that work(ed) for them. TL;DR: they were drowning in LLM generated vulnerability reports, of which only a tiny fraction were actually valid. Any tool that dramatically degrades the signal-to-noise ratio does more harm than good.