Zig is an educational project. One of the goals of these rules is to facilitate sharing of experience. Having AI do the work for a person goes against that goal. In that regard it’s completely understandable.
It’s not the interview itself, but I can’t be bothered to look for it.
You’re missing the whole point of these requirements.
Zig is, first and foremost, an educational platform. If you’re contributing AI generated content you’re taking an educational opportunity form someone and not really gaining any meaningful experience yourself either.
At least that’s what the creator said in an interview.
I want this response to be higher. This is an excellent take.
While I agree with not buying being better that giving them money. I can’t agree with leadership being smart.
This thing was never going to be profitable. So they either:
a) they’re actively malicious — they were never planning on profiting which means this is basically a pump and dump scheme capable of triggering some form of recession;
b) they’re fucking morons for believing their own fantasies, which judging by their public appearances would track.
Former seems just as plausible, but my bet is on the latter. These AI bro CEOs seem to be woefully average at best.
I’ve seen other takes of this in the comments and I’m inclined to agree with them.
I don’t believe the rules are as much about enforcement as they are about setting the tone. Yes, it seems very broad, but it’s much easier to point to a rule than to waste time arguing what is and is not a valid contribution.
The educational aspect isn’t the only thing no AI rules try to achieve. Denial of attention has become a real thing since LLMs were introduced, so having a strict no AI policy helps to save maintainer time.
Again this can be brought back to the educational argument: if a maintainer is spending time arguing about validity of AI contributions, they’re not sharing knowledge, but I’m not sure if that’s really the case in this particular instance.