> I do think that it was weird to focus on the AI aspect so much. AI is going to pollute everything going forward whether you like it or not.
The bigger issue is that they claimed no AI was used. That’s an outright lie which makes you think if you should trust anything else about it.
> And honestly who cares, either it is a good ressource for learning or it’s not. You have to decide that for yourself and not based on whether AI helped writing it.
You have no way of knowing if something is a good resource for learning until you invest your time into it. If it turns out it’s not a good resource, your time was wasted. Worse, you may have learned wrong ideas you now have to unlearn. If something was generated with an LLM, you have zero idea which parts are wrong or right.
I agree with you. It is shitty behavior to say it is not AI written when it clearly is.
But I also think we at this point should just assume that everything is partially written using AI.
For your last point, I think this was also a problem before LLMs. It has of course become easier to fake some kind of ethos in your writing, but it is also becoming easier to spot AI slop when you know what to look after right?
> I agree with you. It is shitty behavior to say it is not AI written when it clearly is.
> But I also think we at this point should just assume that everything is partially written using AI.
Using "but" here implies your 2nd line is a partial refutation to the first. No one would have been angry if he'd posted it without clearly lying. Using AI isn't what pissed anyone off, being directly lied to (presumably to get around the strict "made by humans" rules across all the various Zig communities). Then there was the abusive PR edits attacking someone that seems to have gotten him banned. And his history of typosquatting, both various crypto surfaces, and cursor, and the typosquatting account for zigglang. People are mad because the guy is a selfish asshole, not because he dared to use AI.
Nothing I've written has been assisted by AI in any way, and I know a number of people who do and demand the same. I don't think it's a reasonable default assumption.
The bigger issue is that they claimed no AI was used. That’s an outright lie which makes you think if you should trust anything else about it.
> And honestly who cares, either it is a good ressource for learning or it’s not. You have to decide that for yourself and not based on whether AI helped writing it.
You have no way of knowing if something is a good resource for learning until you invest your time into it. If it turns out it’s not a good resource, your time was wasted. Worse, you may have learned wrong ideas you now have to unlearn. If something was generated with an LLM, you have zero idea which parts are wrong or right.