←back to thread

Open-source Zig book

(www.zigbook.net)
692 points rudedogg | 4 comments | 16 Nov 25 19:44 UTC | HN request time: 0.453s | source
Show context
johnfn ◴[16 Nov 25 21:33 UTC] No.45948608[source]▶
The book claims it’s not written with the help of AI, but the content seems so blatantly AI-generated that I’m not sure what to conclude, unless the author is the guy OpenAI trained GPT-5 on:

> Learning Zig is not just about adding a language to your resume. It is about fundamentally changing how you think about software.

“Not just X - Y” constructions.

> By Chapter 61, you will not just know Zig; you will understand it deeply enough to teach others, contribute to the ecosystem, and build systems that reflect your complete mastery.

More not just X - Y constructions with parallelism.

Even the “not made with AI” banner seems AI generated! Note the 3 item parallelism.

> The Zigbook intentionally contains no AI-generated content—it is hand-written, carefully curated, and continuously updated to reflect the latest language features and best practices.

I don’t have anything against AI generated content. I’m just confused what’s going on here!

EDIT: after scanning the contents of the book itself I don’t believe it’s AI generated - perhaps it’s just the intro?

EDIT again: no, I’ve swung back to the camp of mostly AI generated. I would believe it if you told me the author wrote it by hand and then used AI to trim the style, but “no AI” seems hard to believe. The flow charts in particular stand out like a sore thumb - they just don’t have the kind of content a human would put in flow charts.

replies(3): >>45948658 #>>45948865 #>>45951764 #
finder83 ◴[16 Nov 25 22:07 UTC] No.45948865[source]▶
Every time I read things like this, it makes me think that AI was trained off of me. Using semicolons, utilizing classic writing patterns, and common use of compare and contrast are all examples of how they teach to write essays in high school and college. They're also all examples of how I think and have learned to communicate.

I'm not sure what to make of that either.

replies(2): >>45948920 #>>45950543 #
1. johnfn ◴[16 Nov 25 22:12 UTC] No.45948920[source]▶
To be explicit, it’s not general hallmarks of good writing. It’s exactly two common constructions: not X but Y, and 3 items in parallel. These two pop up in extreme disproportion to normal “good writing”. Good writers know to save these tricks for when they really want to make a point.
replies(2): >>45948962 #>>45950220 #
2. finder83 ◴[16 Nov 25 22:18 UTC] No.45948962[source]▶
Interesting, I'll have to look for those.
3. anon7000 ◴[17 Nov 25 01:55 UTC] No.45950220[source]▶
Most people aren’t great writers, though (including myself). I’d guess that if people find the “not X but Y” compelling, they’ll overuse it. Overusing some stylistic element is such a normal writing “mistake”. Unless they’re an extremely good writer with lots of tools in their toolbox. But that’s not most people.
replies(1): >>45950410 #
4. johnfn ◴[17 Nov 25 02:41 UTC] No.45950410[source]▶
I find the probability that a particular writer latches onto the exact same patterns that AI latches onto, and does not latch onto any of the patterns AI does not latch onto, to be quite low. Is it a 100% smoking gun? No. But it’s suspicious.