Isn't "soft ban" still a bit harsh? I think it was reasonable take and a good reminder of the purpose of these events.

It's hard to avoid the topic when it literally redefines what it means to create software. If I'm using it to create some piece of software, then I turn around and say "I wrote this" am I even being truthful? But if I'm trying to avoid mentioning LLMs what other wording could I use?

Yes, organizers can do whatever they want. Their event, their rules. If you put in the work to run a Python meetup, you are free to ban discussion of tomatoes if you really want to. Conversely, those with tomato psychosis are free to avoid your event if they truly can't survive a few hours without talking about tomatoes.

I was once in a hackerspace that held regular "show and tell" nights for people to present interesting technology projects. We eventually hit a rash of non-regulars bringing in "projects" that were essentially sales-pitches for devices sold through multi-level marketing scams. Figuring out how to ban those without blocking someone who intended to monetize their projects was tricky.

Point being: just because a thing technically fits the genre does not mean it is something that the audience wants to listen to.

I think you misread that. He's recommending not completely banning the subject.

undefined

This should be read sarcastically. Its an idiom in the US. You state something you view as obviously true while qualifying it with "maybe - just maybe". Its commonly said in a comedic tone.

undefined

Let me fix your logical fallacy of composition:

" * Excitement from people who are able to [unaccountably plagerize] things they could not,

* Fear from people who's [business IP rights] are threatened,

* [overt copyright theft from] artists [and chat bot users] whose work is being ripped off,

* [well funded denigration of] activists looking out for ecosystems & the climate. "

Thankfully LLM are not real "AI", and modern hapless 'slavery with extra steps' plans will eventually end badly. Popcorn and bubble infrastructure liquidation fund standing by... =3

undefined

undefined

That doesn't mean anything in the context of a Zig Day. People will come to the event full of new experiences to talk about that relate to LLMs and also with some worries about the future of their profession, wich also will relate to LLMs a lot.

Not only these are generally reasonable things for a human to want to talk about, but what is happening in the tech industry is definitely on topic for an event like Zig Days.

The problem is when this consumes nearly 100% of the communication bandwidth detracting from the main goals of the event (applying systems thinking & making software you can love).

There's an irony in your comment. On one hand, it's clearly starkly anti-LLM, but on the other hand, you treat humans and LLMs as similar categories, accepting a strong pro-AI framing.

You would never say "events are for humans, not search engines" as if search engines were a similar category to humans.

I like the idea of "it's not about LLMs" better as a starting point. For example, someone could peel off from a shared coding session, ask an LLM to try a concept, then bring that LLM chat to the group to explore (and then yes close that window and go back to face-to-face). Make more efficient use of the face-to-face time.

You could be right but I can think of numerous frustrating code jams in my past when we burned a lot of precious face-to-face time on fussy setup or other fiddly stuff.

That's like saying ban IDEs. Or ban search engines. LLM is just a tool that humans use to create things.

Agreed, it is not a AstroTurf marketing event for hype.

zig is a cool language, and worth learning about. =3

undefined