MicroZig to Adopt Strict No LLM / No AI Policy

Tiberium

"No LLMs for finding bugs." I really don't get rules such as these, plus they're not really enforceable. There's a difference between using the LLM to write the bug report and using the LLM to find the bug (if you suspect there is one) to then report after manual checking, in human words.

nnx

> No LLMs for brainstorming and then sharing the results of that brainstorming, even if you create the prose. I can understand the no automated AI contribution point of view, but going overboard with the above that is also completely unenforceable makes the policy look dumb.

paaloeye

The policy in question is based Zig's LLM policies, per the most active maintainer of the project, Matthew Knight — the author of Em Dash Counter Sources: - https://github.com/mattnite - https://github.com/mattnite/em-dash-counter - https://mattnite.net

paaloeye

Matthew, the main maintainer, has no hard feeling if someone decides to make an LLM fork. Forks are welcome basically. Indeed no hard feelings.

fps-hero

> No LLMs for finding bugs. If an LLM finds a bug in some code, but you fail to report it because of a project's code of conduct regarding AI, does the bug even exist at all? If you find a bug in some code, and use AI to help you find the fix, are you allowed to submit the fix? Or should you just let them "figure it out". I'm sorry, but I can't take stances like this seriously. Policies like this are unhelpful. This reeks of the academic knee-jerk reaction of ban AI, without considering the reality that yes, students continue to use AI, even if you tell them not to. AI should be used responsibly. Ban the behaviour you don't want, don't ban the technology.

mattnite

Hey, Matthew Knight here. I'll add what I had to say in the Discord announcement: > It is entirely valid for people to want to use LLMs for their projects and in their communities. It's also valid to want to keep them free of LLMs. Unfortunately those preferences are not compatible, one approach cannot coexist with the other. A choice needs to be made for MicroZig/ZEG projects. I've developed a preference for working without LLMs, and as I'm the most active maintainer of the project, shipping projects like the SYCL Badge, I'm imposing my preference. > I have no hard feelings for anyone that decides to make an LLM fork of microzig.

pugworthy

There will probably be a time when it's impossible to determine if content came from an LLM or a human. We're currently in the, "It's been 'shopped, I can tell by the pixels" stage.

orangecat

No LLMs for finding bugs. As of late 2026, this is gross negligence and any project with such a policy should be assumed to have a variety of easily exploitable vulnerabilities.

luckydata

this is dumb

syscll

I don’t understand why people get so annoyed at policies like this. Zig seems to be a niche community that really embraces the people and craft of programming as opposed to being just another language. To me, it’s akin to running a classic car club and not wanting drivers to turn up in their 2026 GT3 RS. They appreciate the building process and the thought and effort that went into it. At least, that’s my interpretation after attending some meetups/conferences.

senderista

"Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include...discussing this Code of Conduct."

rpmisms

This is a clever rule. It will not be an obstacle for people who are capable of creating higher quality output using LLMs.

paaloeye

Can somebody explain what happened at 0216Z here? https://news.social-protocols.org/stats?id=50282865 I genuinely don't understand.

quasarj

Interesting choice. I'll be interested in how it turns out. There's essentially 0 chance any contributors are better than current models, but sacrifices have to be made to stay pure, I suppose.