• TheAgeOfSuperboredom@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    1 day ago

    Nice! I hope they follow through.

    One thing I appreciate about Rust is that the developers seem to move thoughtfully and apply a fair bit of rigor. It may appear they move slowly at times, but I like their approach.

      • TehPers@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        From the policy in the PR:

        The policy’s guidelines are roughly as follows:

        It’s fine to use LLMs to answer questions, analyze, distill, refine, check, suggest, review. But not to create.

        LLMs work best when used as a tool to write better, not faster.

        We carve out a space for “experimentation” to inform future revisions to this policy.

        So… No, it isn’t.

        Note that there are times when using a LLM to create code is allowed. Reading the doc explains the nuance.

    • cm0002@lemy.lolOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      Agreed, but hopefully they’re being used more for “Let’s pause for now while we figure out a good way to filter out true AI-Code-Kiddies slop from actual programmers using it as a proper tool” rather than perm bans

      • TehPers@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 day ago

        Actual programmers using it as a proper tool should produce output indistinguishable from actual programmers not using it at all. That there even is (often) a visible distinction is a big part of the problem.

        Notably, it even explicitly says in the proposal that it shouldn’t require any policing. Instead, obvious cases are more important.