It may surprise some people here to see that Andrew is warming up to using LLMs to discover bugs (inspired by results from SQLlite) and considers it a tool on the path to getting to bug free software.
> It may surprise some people here to see that Andrew is warming up to using LLMs to discover bugs (inspired by results from SQLlite) and considers it a tool on the path to getting to bug free software.
Someone in the thread below says their bug was closed because of mentioning that they use AI to confirm the bug they had encountered. Is he going to go back and reopen all of those now that he learned what pretty much everyone else already knew?
> Someone in the thread below says their bug was closed because of mentioning that they use AI to confirm the bug they had encountered
I don't know about this particular case, but if I saw someone report a bug and as evidence claim they had X Y and Z LLMs verify it I would be pretty upset. If you're going to use an LLM to make a replication, just do that and give me the replication, don't point to your notoriously error-prone tools as though they lend your report credence.
It's in a similar vein to people who reply to questions with "well Claude says: <chat transcript dump>"
Why? Shouldn't everybody already know that using AI to find bugs for oneself is amazingly efficient, but using AI to submit bug reports for others is quite the opposite. Burden of verification and all.
They seem to be doing fine. Tigerbeetle and Ghostty are two projects that continue to do well and are written in Zig. The foundation’s funding also seems to be doing well. They are continuing to make releases.
Filed a compiler bug related to dwarf tables that screws up debugging and line of code coverage that they completely ignored, just because I mentioned that I had every LLM check it to confirm it's a bug, since all I know is what kcov and every coverage tool generates incorrect coverage data for my repo, for 100% certain.
Reading their comment it sounds like they wanted to confirm the bug existed with AI, not sure they ever said they had AI write the code. Why have such a dumb policy?
If there's an edict that no one is allowed to bring up the topic, how can someone change this part of the code of conduct?
Asking non-rhetorically. It seems like one position "ai in any circumstance = bad" is being enforced. The commenter above didn't even understand why he was ignored.
Wow I thought surely they wouldn't object to using AI to confirm bugs, but they really do.
Tbf I guess as a popular open source project not using AI to fix bugs, they probably already have more open bugs than they can ever fix so it doesn't really help them for people to find more.
I would imagine his bug was actually ignored just because Zig has 2700 open bugs, rather than some AI policy violation.
They don’t, at least not any more. Andrew Kelley has explicitly stated that he sees the value of using LLMs to uncover bugs. Inspired by sqllite project.
They may just be taking the slow route of rejecting by default until they can be sure that the usage of LLMs provides long term value. I don’t see anything wrong with that. If you’re writing robust software, using LLMs at this stage is a bit of a gamble. We don’t fully know the long term effects on code quality yet.
Project maintainers know what level of AI use is acceptable for themselves, and quantifying it and enforcing it for random contributors is very difficult.
Seems like "parallel construction" where you show you actually understand and can explain the issue independent of an LLM would be the way to go. No need to mention how you found the bug as long as you can explain what the bug is, why it matters, and how to repro.
Lying to get around a project policy you disagree with is immature. They have the right to run things the way they want, either accept their rules or leave the project be.
If they really insist on no LLM involvement at all then they're going to fall behind and lose out. Your LLM use case seems really very conservative - you didn't write any code with it, you just use it to confirm the bug. There are many OSS projects that are also taking a similar hardline against LLMs - people are going to fork them and then move on. I've had LLMs fix bugs/add features to a couple of projects like this and, well, they're missing out on the fixes/added features that I'm using locally.
Can you offer any specifics? The ToC looks quite extensive, which to me indicates a lot of design decisions needed to be made (probably involving many people) and unclear how that process might be accelerated by AI.
Unless you're suggesting the language design should also be vibed together?
> Unless you're suggesting the language design should also be vibed together?
Sounds like a fun little project, have a bunch of AI pushers fork Zig and see if they can do a better job. I want to see results, not snarky HN comments. After all this progress, ChatGPT should be able to one-shot a better language since AI is so good now... right?
One-shot, no, but there are a bunch of people pretty much solo-building their personal ideal language with AI and it's going quite well. You need to know just enough about language design to be dangerous, but you don't need to be a seasoned pro.
Been thinking about doing this myself (did some PL in grad school but it's been a long time), but I find myself wanting to reach for a Scheme (using macros to grow the language I want) and customize it or build something atop Janet.
Curious why you wanted a more ML / Rust / Scala inspired syntax. (Personal preference here is totally valid btw, just curious.)
None of these systems can. They need enormous training. They need alignment and reinforcement. They need harnesses. And most importantly they need a human that knows how to write and develop a C compiler.
The ISO specifications are not sufficient. Neither are the System V guidelines. Not even spec tests and compcert.
You're not going to one-shot it, but over the course of a couple of months of evenings you could come up with something usable/interesting if you manage the LLM well.
Yep, it's true, but the reality of what it would take to actually fork and commence with healthy use of AI alongside with the elusive soft/hard stance needed to lead technically and socially is probably a bigger challenge than anyone is willing to take on! Soo.. slow and (rather?) well it goes for Zig.
The fix could not be backported to LLVM 22 because it changed the LLVM library ABI. We also could not skip straight to LLVM 23 because that would make life harder for distro package maintainers.
Back in a more adult age, the way that this was handled was "We've benefited from our past collaboration, but we believe a new direction is needed going forward."
For some reason--COVID brain rot, poorly-socialized people coming online, general increase in viciousness in the population, who knows!--people have forgotten the utility and purpose of boring polite manners and communication.
https://youtu.be/zwi5b5xSsKA?is=PTjJJjSnVMdRuZag
It may surprise some people here to see that Andrew is warming up to using LLMs to discover bugs (inspired by results from SQLlite) and considers it a tool on the path to getting to bug free software.
Someone in the thread below says their bug was closed because of mentioning that they use AI to confirm the bug they had encountered. Is he going to go back and reopen all of those now that he learned what pretty much everyone else already knew?
I don't know about this particular case, but if I saw someone report a bug and as evidence claim they had X Y and Z LLMs verify it I would be pretty upset. If you're going to use an LLM to make a replication, just do that and give me the replication, don't point to your notoriously error-prone tools as though they lend your report credence.
It's in a similar vein to people who reply to questions with "well Claude says: <chat transcript dump>"
Actually, on second thought, it really doesn't. Indoctrination and herd mentality are quite the things.
I'm looking forward to see what the new build integration can unlock on the tooling side.
What I'm looking for the most for the next release(s):
- New stackless coroutine IO implementation
- First class fuzzer tooling
>No LLMs for finding bugs.
>No talking about use of chatbot/LLM services.
I've said it before and I'll say it again- it's a cult that bans dissent
Asking non-rhetorically. It seems like one position "ai in any circumstance = bad" is being enforced. The commenter above didn't even understand why he was ignored.
To clarify, do you mean someone who isn't part of the core team?
I've written code a long time and that's probably the dumbest rule I've seen.
Tbf I guess as a popular open source project not using AI to fix bugs, they probably already have more open bugs than they can ever fix so it doesn't really help them for people to find more.
I would imagine his bug was actually ignored just because Zig has 2700 open bugs, rather than some AI policy violation.
Show me a popular open source project that doesn't have a large number of open issues and I'll show you one that has a triage bot auto-close them.
https://youtu.be/zwi5b5xSsKA?is=PTjJJjSnVMdRuZag
They may just be taking the slow route of rejecting by default until they can be sure that the usage of LLMs provides long term value. I don’t see anything wrong with that. If you’re writing robust software, using LLMs at this stage is a bit of a gamble. We don’t fully know the long term effects on code quality yet.
> gets ignored
Who could have forseen this.
Unless you're suggesting the language design should also be vibed together?
Sounds like a fun little project, have a bunch of AI pushers fork Zig and see if they can do a better job. I want to see results, not snarky HN comments. After all this progress, ChatGPT should be able to one-shot a better language since AI is so good now... right?
I'm doing it myself: https://zena-lang.dev/
Curious why you wanted a more ML / Rust / Scala inspired syntax. (Personal preference here is totally valid btw, just curious.)
None of these systems can. They need enormous training. They need alignment and reinforcement. They need harnesses. And most importantly they need a human that knows how to write and develop a C compiler.
The ISO specifications are not sufficient. Neither are the System V guidelines. Not even spec tests and compcert.
Just don't be surprised if the project BFDL talks shit about you or your company later.
(Still a good language though, credit where credit is due.)
A simple, "this entity is a sponsor, and therefore there is a conflict of interest and we will not comment on recent controversy" is enough.
If it's big enough, refuse to take further contributions.
I know it's not entertaining, but that's why we have video games.
For some reason--COVID brain rot, poorly-socialized people coming online, general increase in viciousness in the population, who knows!--people have forgotten the utility and purpose of boring polite manners and communication.