bendmorris

Sounds like you violated the clearly stated project rules and admitted to it. Are you surprised that they're not engaging with you?

This study seems to have proven the opposite. Doing the work without AI resulted in higher exam scores.

You also have your book and a wealth of online resources, which also don't require interacting with someone, and which have the same information the AI is trained on. Fundamentally nothing is different. We don't see positive outcomes from students using AI as an aid even if hypothetically it could be possible.

>For most uses the truck is better than the horse.

I think you're talking past the author here, who says:

>By not leaning into LLMs I’ve given myself the room to specialise in a smaller set of skills. So far that conscious decision is working out well, and I remain confident about my job security.

"Most uses" might mean boilerplate and simple frontend work that LLMs can do easily because it's formulaic and doesn't require much creativity. OP is simply not doing that type of work.

I don't think anyone sane is really claiming 100x or 1000x speedups anymore. Most people I talk to who use LLMs are closer to 1.5 or 2. Because their job is not mostly boilerplate, there is simply not that much room to be improved.

It is absolutely not the em dashes that make it read like slop and the author even acknowledges it.

The "contributor poker" made by someone on the Zig core team is a good one. You're thinking from the perspective like yourself and how they might be affected negatively by this policy. The org is thinking about what's happening at scale and what policy is going to improve outcomes overall for them.

Are there some potential contributors who might be discouraged because of this policy? Probably. Will maintainers have less time wasted by obvious low effort changes and engagement? Also probably. A user of AI is, in the experience of many maintainers, way more likely to be lazy than engaged.

LOC is not a good indicator of productivity or quality - or it anything these days it's a negative one. "Million-line software" is meaningless.

What kind of evidence do you expect beyond "random claims" here?

This post is incredibly obviously AI generated, to the extent that I doubt a human author edited it at all. Not "written with AI assistance" but full on "give Claude some bullets and hit publish." It contains tons of tropes that show up in all AI writing and which people are highlighting here.

What would convince you of that?

The Phoronix article contains no more information than his resignation email.

They also complained about build times, and in fact the Rust rewrite started immediately after some other drama about Bun being unable to contribute back LLM-written changes to the Zig compiler to improve build times, and the Zig team rejecting them in principle. So while memory issues did become the focus later, I don't think it was the entire story.

Migrating to Rust in a one-to-one translation with unsafe blocks does not make the code any more safe initially. It might provide tools to do a significant refactor that solves lifetime issues with Rust's help, but I haven't seen evidence that they've done that either. They're also embedding a large C++ codebase, JavaScriptCore, so there are always going to be unsafe areas and touchpoints where memory issues could live, and Rust won't magically solve them.

You're not making all the decisions in that case. You're making approvals and steering but the agent is making decisions and is framing what is even available to you to approve. When you build something by hand, you make decisions as you go in a way that the agent is now replacing.