Most active commenters
  • stavros(5)
  • throwawa14223(4)

←back to thread

Claude Code: Now in Beta in Zed

(zed.dev)
677 points meetpateltech | 27 comments | 03 Sep 25 15:07 UTC | HN request time: 0.89s | source | bottom
1. throwawa14223 ◴[03 Sep 25 15:48 UTC] No.45117173[source]▶
Zed used to be a good editor but it is increasingly LLM infested.
replies(6): >>45117214 #>>45117243 #>>45117244 #>>45117317 #>>45117359 #>>45117410 #
2. Sparkle-san ◴[03 Sep 25 15:53 UTC] No.45117214[source]▶
Just disable it. It seems like they've made is as simple as possible to do so while also being realistic about what it takes to make a successful (read: profitable) IDE the year 2025.
replies(2): >>45117553 #>>45117771 #
3. maleldil ◴[03 Sep 25 15:56 UTC] No.45117243[source]▶
How does the existence of LLM features impact the quality of the rest of the editor? It's a single toggle to disable everything [1].

[1] https://zed.dev/blog/disable-ai-features

replies(1): >>45121340 #
4. suck-my-spez ◴[03 Sep 25 15:56 UTC] No.45117244[source]▶
One line fix for you…

https://zed.dev/blog/disable-ai-features

replies(1): >>45121355 #
5. jsheard ◴[03 Sep 25 16:01 UTC] No.45117317[source]▶
It was always going to be infested with something or other, you don't raise $42M for just a text editor. Could be worse, a few years earlier it probably would have incorporated blockchains somehow.
replies(1): >>45117674 #
6. simonw ◴[03 Sep 25 16:05 UTC] No.45117359[source]▶
I know what you mean. I used to like Emacs but then they added syntax highlighting for Rust and I don't use Rust so I'll never touch that editor ever again.
replies(2): >>45117426 #>>45117779 #
7. ◴[03 Sep 25 16:09 UTC] No.45117410[source]▶
8. ar_lan ◴[03 Sep 25 16:10 UTC] No.45117426[source]▶
The deal breaker for me was when they introduced support for the "delete" key. A real developer should get it right the first time.
replies(1): >>45117746 #
9. runarberg ◴[03 Sep 25 16:18 UTC] No.45117553[source]▶
Given the state of information technology in 2025 I think your parent has a good reason to believe AI features ruins everything. It is common in well funded (read VC funded) technology to start with an easy toggle to disable, and then slowly make opt-out ever harder to completely accomplish. Disable 3rd party tracking ads on google platforms used to be a simple toggle as well.
replies(1): >>45117793 #
10. cameroncooper ◴[03 Sep 25 16:28 UTC] No.45117674[source]▶
Seems like a reasonable trade-off to me. I'm happy for them to have a sustainable business model and people seem quite willing to pay monthly for AI. As long as they keep the free version and the ability to disable AI features then I think everyone wins.
replies(1): >>45118280 #
11. pjerem ◴[03 Sep 25 16:33 UTC] No.45117746{3}[source]▶
IMHO, the delete key can still be useful for other developers "contributions".
replies(1): >>45118218 #
12. stavros ◴[03 Sep 25 16:35 UTC] No.45117771[source]▶
I've found that the sort of people who complain about AI or cryptocurrency don't care if it can be disabled. The mere fact that such functionality exists taints the product for them. I can't say I understand the reasons (I like AI functionality), but that's what I've noticed.
replies(2): >>45119085 #>>45121333 #
13. Karrot_Kream ◴[03 Sep 25 16:36 UTC] No.45117779[source]▶
Can you believe they had the gall to even run code that allowed those vim heathens to feel comfortable in emacs? The horror /s
14. stavros ◴[03 Sep 25 16:36 UTC] No.45117793{3}[source]▶
You can think that AI ruins everything, or that tracking ads ruin everything, but the reality is that VC investment ruins everything, because it turns you from the customer to the product.

I guess the eventual culprit is capitalism, where profit is the ultimate goal for everything, so there will never be a single product that is not enshittified in this way.

The best part? If you don't like it, there's nothing you can do! It's the whole culture.

15. ilc ◴[03 Sep 25 17:12 UTC] No.45118218{4}[source]▶
git revert works better ;)
16. jmull ◴[03 Sep 25 17:17 UTC] No.45118280{3}[source]▶
> As long as they keep...

The thing is, they will have to switch to maximizing monetization (or die trying). Those investors are ultimately in control, and while they are happy to gain market share for now, that's what they will demand in the future.

They will keep a free version for as long as it's working for them, but you will be monetized, one way or another, sooner or later, and you might not enjoy it.

replies(2): >>45118666 #>>45119661 #
17. cameroncooper ◴[03 Sep 25 17:56 UTC] No.45118666{4}[source]▶
Agreed, but Zed is open source so I think that does offer some long term protection to users who like the editor and don't want AI.
18. microflash ◴[03 Sep 25 18:40 UTC] No.45119085{3}[source]▶
I do care that it can be disabled. My problem with such functionality is that it becomes the sole focus of the development team, drifting their attention away from improving core experiences, such as language and plugin support, polishing ergonomics, and pruning papercuts.
replies(1): >>45119100 #
19. stavros ◴[03 Sep 25 18:41 UTC] No.45119100{4}[source]▶
The focus of the team is gone. Their target now is not to make a great product, but to make an engaging product that makes money however they can.

The AI is a symptom of the problem. If it weren't AI, it would be something else.

replies(1): >>45119757 #
20. sexyman48 ◴[03 Sep 25 19:40 UTC] No.45119661{4}[source]▶
We brought this upon ourselves. As much as we reviled forking over four hundred 1998-dollars to use Microsoft Word, shrink-wrapped closed-source was more honest way to make a living than the current surveillance schemes.
21. sexyman48 ◴[03 Sep 25 19:50 UTC] No.45119757{5}[source]▶
make an engaging product that makes money however they can.

Is that not what your employer does?

replies(1): >>45119772 #
22. stavros ◴[03 Sep 25 19:52 UTC] No.45119772{6}[source]▶
It is, because they're VC-funded.
23. throwawa14223 ◴[03 Sep 25 23:06 UTC] No.45121333{3}[source]▶
Yes. I don't want to give support or market share to a company that is using AI as it is an unethical technology.
replies(1): >>45121571 #
24. throwawa14223 ◴[03 Sep 25 23:07 UTC] No.45121340[source]▶
The inclusion of an unethical tech is a deal breaker.
25. throwawa14223 ◴[03 Sep 25 23:08 UTC] No.45121355[source]▶
Does that button cause them to cease using LLM technology? My objection is on ethical grounds.
26. stavros ◴[03 Sep 25 23:36 UTC] No.45121571{4}[source]▶
Do you also refuse to use search engines, cars, phones, computers, etc? Or by "AI" do you specifically mean LLMs?
replies(1): >>45122411 #
27. runarberg ◴[04 Sep 25 01:27 UTC] No.45122411{5}[source]▶
AI is such a bad and tainted term and since LLMs became so prominent it has kind of become synonymous with LLMs and generative AI more broadly.

I honestly think this is for the better, (un)supervised learning models and other machine learning models with a reasonable number of parameters (k-means clustering, Markov Chains etc.) are usually not called AI any more (and honestly haven’t been for some time; machine learning has been much more popular for at least 10-15 years in my experience).