Post #2481347

RE: https://hachyderm.io/@kristoff/116488267530388091 This was so refreshing to read, and it made me love Zig even more as a learner. From my reading, I think the essential distinction is whether the contributors actually think about and acknowledge the changes (and the design of those changes) they're making. In light of that, the AI ban itself isn't the "perfect" borderline, I think. It's because there are a lot of developers who can utilize AI as a tool, driven by their own thinking, decisions, and understanding (using AI for searching parts of code, online documentation, and less hallucination-prone code generation with good human review would be good examples). So I understand Zig's policy as having a clear boundary on that, even if it's not perfect as intended. But at the same time, I can think of two things for software development in general (not directly to Zig's) with great respect and love for the current Zig's AI policy. One is that it might be okay to allow the core development team to use AI since they're trusted not to misuse it. Second, it's more intrinsic if there were a good metric to deterministically check contributors' understanding. Not perfectly aligned with the second point, but letting them write the PR comment in their own words could be a more mitigated solution than a strong AI ban, if I allow AI use while upholding the philosophy I felt was behind that. I'd be glad if anyone could share their thoughts on this. #ai #vibe_coding #zig #oss