The Zig project's rationale for their firm anti-AI contribution policy

Re:The Zig project's rationale for their firm anti-AI contri... by julenx on Thursday April 30, 2026 @02:26AM (#47958905)

The article explains Zig's stance in further detail, but the quoted part on its own caught my attention because my reading of it is rather "pro human communication" instead of "anti-AI".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Zig project's rationale for their firm anti-AI contri... by kennykartman on Thursday April 30, 2026 @05:07AM (#47959986)

They're banning all AI though, so it looks pretty much anti-AI to me.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Zig project's rationale for their firm anti-AI contri... by pjjpo on Thursday April 30, 2026 @05:45AM (#47960198)

I wonder - has it been confirmed that no LLMs for PRs literally means no AI assistance for code?

While I haven't codified it anywhere, the policy I would like is for issues and PR descriptions to have no LLMs - there is no reason to ban code completely though IMO. I would say that would be pro human-communication and a stance I would like a lot.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Zig project's rationale for their firm anti-AI contri... by dakolli on Thursday April 30, 2026 @06:06AM (#47960337)

Good, pro AI people produce poor quality in everything they do. They are the least creative and worst problem solvers. I don't want them near me or my work.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Zig project's rationale for their firm anti-AI contri... by SuperV1234 on Thursday April 30, 2026 @06:15AM (#47960397)

Your whole schtick, judging by your dozens of comments, is a sense of superiority over pro-AI people and LLMs.

I'm willing to bet I produce higher quality code than you with AI assistance.

[ Parent | on HN ]