Why are you so sure this is “revisionism”? They’re not trying to rewrite history, they’re trying to explain their staunch policy.
It’s their project, and if they want to carefully select contributors they think will stick around and be a member of the community, then that is entirely their prerogative. This is a viable model for a niche project. There’s no requirement that they invest time and energy to review and integrate every last PR.
Like I said look at the PR’s and the way they are closed off. there were no explanations of this policy then just a “Fuck AI”. If there was a time to take the time to explain this, it was when the first one came through. They didn’t and that’s perfectly fine but circling back later and trying to make a justifiable reason after the fact is either a shitty thing to do to the random people that were trying to contribute and didn’t understand the stance or the stance was only “fuck AI”, then they felt there was a reason they should explain or had to come up with a more palatable explanation later. My thoughts on AI actually don’t matter at all. I have concerns the realistic expectations of this policy but there’s no rules all policies must be maximally realistic. like I said earlier I wish Zig all the best in there endeavor. it just seems like this coming out now after there attitude and lack of explanation is new policy masking as policy that always applied.
Ok, I just searched their codeberg for the word “fuck” and both (yes, exactly 2) closed MRs were, in fact, heaps of LLM puke with no engagement from the “author”. More importantly, both of these were created after the policy was posted.
I think your argument is nonsense. Post evidence if you have it, but I’m guessing you won’t.
I think that the code of conduct pre-diff is less professional but totally unambiguous about AI-generated contributions, so I’m not sure where your confusion is coming from. And I have already spent more time looking for evidence of your claims than you have, so no thanks, I think that unless you present something of substance I’m good.
https://github.com/ziglang/zig/pull/24983https://github.com/ziglang/zig/pull/25687https://github.com/ziglang/zig/pull/25974https://codeberg.org/ziglang/zig/pulls/31154
read these a while ago in a different forum site. I think you are misreading/misinterpreting what I objected to. I said “like a bit of revisionism/justifying previous actions with a more palatable excuse other than fuck AI.” if this was too abstract, let me put it this way, no where in the coc or wiki or anywhere did they try and make this about growing a community or vetting contributors until recently. it was per that wiki not at all like that and easy to miss. my issue is not with banning ai contributions. it is with what i see as trying to change the tone to something palatable/reasonable after the fact.
also i’ve tried to keep this free of personal attacks against you or anyone else. I don’t think i’m going to continue this. I made what i felt was a pretty mild critique based on a conversation i had on a different forum explained my critique, was then told go get a list of incidents which missed my point entirely of the whole changing narrative bit which was then partially acknowleged as “less professional” but “totally unambiguous”. obviously this isn’t about engaging on what my critique was, just winning arguments. I’ll save you the trouble. you win!
Why are you so sure this is “revisionism”? They’re not trying to rewrite history, they’re trying to explain their staunch policy.
It’s their project, and if they want to carefully select contributors they think will stick around and be a member of the community, then that is entirely their prerogative. This is a viable model for a niche project. There’s no requirement that they invest time and energy to review and integrate every last PR.
Like I said look at the PR’s and the way they are closed off. there were no explanations of this policy then just a “Fuck AI”. If there was a time to take the time to explain this, it was when the first one came through. They didn’t and that’s perfectly fine but circling back later and trying to make a justifiable reason after the fact is either a shitty thing to do to the random people that were trying to contribute and didn’t understand the stance or the stance was only “fuck AI”, then they felt there was a reason they should explain or had to come up with a more palatable explanation later. My thoughts on AI actually don’t matter at all. I have concerns the realistic expectations of this policy but there’s no rules all policies must be maximally realistic. like I said earlier I wish Zig all the best in there endeavor. it just seems like this coming out now after there attitude and lack of explanation is new policy masking as policy that always applied.
Ok, I just searched their codeberg for the word “fuck” and both (yes, exactly 2) closed MRs were, in fact, heaps of LLM puke with no engagement from the “author”. More importantly, both of these were created after the policy was posted.
I think your argument is nonsense. Post evidence if you have it, but I’m guessing you won’t.
https://github.com/ziglang/zig/wiki/Writing-Issues-with-Copilot-and-Other-LLMs/_compare/d6b94cb2bf77fe7f30687fe3ffec68878e75c650 That was the code of conduct up until 3 weeks ago also look at slop or just ai.
I think that the code of conduct pre-diff is less professional but totally unambiguous about AI-generated contributions, so I’m not sure where your confusion is coming from. And I have already spent more time looking for evidence of your claims than you have, so no thanks, I think that unless you present something of substance I’m good.
https://github.com/ziglang/zig/pull/24983 https://github.com/ziglang/zig/pull/25687 https://github.com/ziglang/zig/pull/25974 https://codeberg.org/ziglang/zig/pulls/31154 read these a while ago in a different forum site. I think you are misreading/misinterpreting what I objected to. I said “like a bit of revisionism/justifying previous actions with a more palatable excuse other than fuck AI.” if this was too abstract, let me put it this way, no where in the coc or wiki or anywhere did they try and make this about growing a community or vetting contributors until recently. it was per that wiki not at all like that and easy to miss. my issue is not with banning ai contributions. it is with what i see as trying to change the tone to something palatable/reasonable after the fact. also i’ve tried to keep this free of personal attacks against you or anyone else. I don’t think i’m going to continue this. I made what i felt was a pretty mild critique based on a conversation i had on a different forum explained my critique, was then told go get a list of incidents which missed my point entirely of the whole changing narrative bit which was then partially acknowleged as “less professional” but “totally unambiguous”. obviously this isn’t about engaging on what my critique was, just winning arguments. I’ll save you the trouble. you win!