Repo seems to be gone? User action or GitHub action?
Regardless, for visibility as to maybe-why this happened, here are screenshots of the user editing comments to insult/make them say something they never did;
That's a useful feature for long-running issues to include updates in the opening post. Or to improve formatting when a bug reporter isn't familiar with markdown.
And that it shows in the edit history should at least discourage abuse.
Allowing the maintainer to prepend a comment to the top seems more sensible to me to be honest. Would make API use harder potentially, but it would avoid weird abuse like this.
github is meant for collaboration, designing it around adversarial use would be a loss for everyone. Adding a function to report absusive edits rather than an entire post would be a better choice imo.
reporting abusive edits requires moderation/arbitration. the rules can instead be changed to sidestep the issue, while maintaining the value of the feature.
No, that's not obvious at all. A single event is evidence that some abuse still happens, it does not tell us how much more abuse there would be in the counterfactual where the history wasn't available.
This is particularly useful when editing the top-level comment of a popular issue to specify the current status. Or when a peer opened a placeholder issue and you fill it up. Etc.
If you actually use GitHub as a social network of sorts, there are many reasons to do edit comments. All the edits are visible anyway. You're on Git-Hub, you can already edit everything you have write access to.
Markdown is pretty tricky for new users to figure out, so quite often, users will just paste big snippets of code without formatting them, which is nearly unreadable. I'll usually edit these posts to add ```backticks``` around any code.
That also means that some users will be pressured to censor illegal speech no? If you live under e.g. a regime that disallows or discourages criticism, now suddenly the onus is on you to do something about those comments because you have the ability to. If you couldn't edit the comments it's not your fault.
Either way I think it's a pretty stupid feature the way it's implemented; it should show the edit more clearly or indicate that the comment has been written by multiple people (like StackOverflow does), especially if edits change more than e.g. 10% of the original comment.
The responds and edits are simply unprofessional and immature. I don't hate AI and in fact I use it for many research based tasks, helping me narrowing a lot of tough topics, but it is the People with these kind of attitude turns me off.
Exactly, being dishonest is the real problem here.
Luckily, every edits are recorded in history, so they can't really hide their abusive behavior, for now. Even if they did, seem like there are often people faster in archiving their posts than they hiding their post.
Did you make up A-Lot-AI? Can I suggest "A-Lott-a-AI"?
If you did, this is the greatest thing created in 3 ABC ("After Bullshit ChatGPTification";
ChatGPT launched in 2022.).
NB: Since ChatGPT is basically the new Messiah for many, I really think we should now be using dates like 3 ABC or 5 POS. POS stands for "Prior to Overlord Slop/Shit". I suggest we give up AD/BC.
But, please, I'm not the messiah! (hopefully you have watched Life of Brian!)
Had a conversation with the Zigbook maintainer. It’s either a young kid or somebody that has some serious growing up to do. Just generally weird behavior.
Indeed: @zigbook changed the title "Fix license violations" "Im mad because you wrote code similiar to mine >:(" 3 minutes ago (https://github.com/zigbook/zigbook/pull/43)
I could sort of understand it if the PR used all sorts of judgemental/accusatory language or something. But it doesn't; it's straight-forward and factual. Outright bizarre behaviour.
By that token, is the harmed party here also immature? Also do you work at GitHub and did he hurt your feelings by... being dead accurate as to several engineering failures?
I mean, focus on whatever you want, but he hasn't done anything Linus Torvalds hasn't done (at least similar enough).
Sadly the important information, what was actually edited, isn't part of that mirror. (It's async fetched by the ui when clicking on the edit information on GitHub)
"Quick research - author's actual profile is https://github.com/zk-evm, and he's a potential scammer from crypto spaces, who also happens to be running fake GitHub Organisation of the Cursor editor, along with related BuyMeACoffee claiming it being official page of the "Cursor AI Editor"."
Well, the name of the "real" account is "zkevm.dev", and the previous account was zk-evm. Those are just letters to me, but it does seem like a clear link. Couldn't say that either is "real", though.
But copyright infringement is a legal wrong (a civil liability).
Is what they're doing infringing on a copyrighted work? Or does it fail to uphold license terms? Many open source licenses have some amount of attribution as a requirement, so that'd be something to consider.
I genuinely believe more people violate permissive licenses than copyleft license. I have no data to back this up, but just look at how much people focused on if LLMs were violating the GPL by reproducing code covered by the GPL without reproducing the license. If LLMs violate the GPL, they violate all licenses besides ones that are effectively public domain.
This probably depends on country, but AFAIK in most of europe, even in public domain, the „you can’t pass another’s work as your own” part of copyright is still active and doesn’t expire.
This piques my interest, what is the legally required recognition of a derivative's parent work? Must I be able to list dependencies, or should I be able to verify whether a parent work is included in mine? What if my work is a second derivative of a work which I am unaware of, because the work in between improperly didn't recognise its parent? Am I legally responsible to investigate such cases?
AI is actually beginning to encourage "restricted source", public-only-gets-binary debates to simply avoid such legal issues.
Write a snail-mail letter to get the real sources. Repositories are private with a small well-vetted list of contributors. Also avoid slop-PR headaches that away.
If you were licensing MIT, ostensibly it’s not the copying you care about, just the attribution. There is always the option to turn off prs, or even distribute code without using github.
I just can't get over how ridicioulus the "no ai" statement is.
I really love the part where llm.txt has the same notice, something humans will never read, or the fact that llm.txt exists considering that there is distaste for AI in every part of this llm generated book.
"Not generated by AI" is something that every programmer everywhere is going to say about their own work, even when it's obviously AI generated. I've started to publicly call people out when I see they've posted something on social media (LinkedIn, etc.) when I see they've made an AI-generated post. The fraud has to stop.
I'm not ashamed to use AI if it improves my output, people draw the line of "acceptable use" differently just like drug addicts talk shit about each other's drugs to justify their own. I think honesty is more important than cleanliness.
I stopped using linkedin once the mediapipe epidemic started and everyone who could type pip install mediapipe could write a half baked hand and face gesture demo to show themselves as the "cool programmer".
I remember reading the original zig book post and how weird it smelt. Even though it’s LLM written there’s more than a trivial amount of effort put into it. What could anyone possibly have to gain by doing this?
Playground wise, is Zigs wasm compiler able to compile out simd wasm in the browser? I'm trying to find the best languages that can. So far it's just assemblyscript and c/c++ and their compilers are big.
When zigbook first appeared here, I took a cursory scan, and it looked pretty solid and a useful resource. Seems it duped me and got me good. I was even defending the use of AI a little - although the claim needed to go.
Seems they just were just trying to do over a nascent community that I'm interested in seeing growing and wasn't a member of yet.
since zig is famously decentralized, i don't think there is a way to effectively combat bad actors like these? there is no "official zig org" that can disown them
But he isn’t. He’s just writing an AI slop book about Zig. Surely there’s nothing legally wrong with that? He never said it’s an official book or backed by the Zig project.
The trademark cudgel is used on people who release an incompatible language that they insist on calling Zig, confusing people who want to try Zig. Or people who add malware to the Zig tool chain and try to distribute that.
Trademark can’t be used to control bad actors like zigbook.
Incorrect. Not honoring the attribution requirement in the MIT license is a
copyright infringement because it violates the terms of the license, which are legally enforceable conditions.
We are specifically talking about what the Zig project/foundation headed by Andy Kelley can do to such bad actors using the Zig trademark - which is exactly nothing.
I wouldn't be so quick with the "incorrect" if I were you. You haven't even taken the trouble to read two sentences.
In a decentralized but communicating community, this kind of post is raising awareness, and then the others in the community will make their own choices regarding the matter.
This isn’t anything to do with Zig though, it just happens to be the language that this crook chose.
They’ve could’ve picked Nim and done this whole spiel there (you’d want to pick a fledgling language that isn’t saturated with documentation, so the stalwarts aren’t usable).
Ditto... I love Zig as a language but I worry the high-level community builders (including Andrew) are a little too antagonistic to foster a positive, tolerant, patient community in the long term. In saying that, my infrequent interactions in the reddit and discord are always pleasant.
Actual Zig community spaces like Ziggit is very pleasant as far as programming language forums go. I think Zig just occupies a unique space in the language ecosystem (a very performance oriented, production oriented language that is not afraid to rapidly try things and throw them out if it doesn't meet expectations in practice - not many languages sit in the middle of this venn diagram) and people see it as an opportunity to gain a social foothold in something potentially great.
It seems like it might be in the nature of a language with these goals and this development process to attract people like this, no matter how warm and welcoming the community leaders are.
This is the first drama I've heard related to Zig, and seems to have nothing to do with the project itself–this is someone writing an online book about Zig
Zig has previously been involved in all kinds of drama. Including involving money, battles among developers, attempts to split/fork the language, and self-pushed conflicts with other programming languages. This is just the latest, in the long series.
Lying potentially opens up fraud angles if they are soliciting or receiving something of value. Maybe false advertising even they are giving it away for free. A lot of this will depend on who has jurisdiction
Neither are the Zigtools folks. If you've ever run an open source project, you know that instead of running on money, they run on community goodwill. Having people take the project's creation, claim it as their own, and not comply with the license, are all damaging to people's motivation to contribute.
Repo seems to be gone? User action or GitHub action?
Regardless, for visibility as to maybe-why this happened, here are screenshots of the user editing comments to insult/make them say something they never did;
https://imgur.com/a/LsvBXY1
https://web.archive.org/web/20251130091635/https://github.co...
The tool itself claims "Zero AI" (https://www.zigbook.net/) yet is very obviously A-Lot-AI.
It's unbelievable to me that Github allows repo admins to edit other people's comments.
That's a useful feature for long-running issues to include updates in the opening post. Or to improve formatting when a bug reporter isn't familiar with markdown. And that it shows in the edit history should at least discourage abuse.
Allowing the maintainer to prepend a comment to the top seems more sensible to me to be honest. Would make API use harder potentially, but it would avoid weird abuse like this.
github is meant for collaboration, designing it around adversarial use would be a loss for everyone. Adding a function to report absusive edits rather than an entire post would be a better choice imo.
reporting abusive edits requires moderation/arbitration. the rules can instead be changed to sidestep the issue, while maintaining the value of the feature.
It obviously does not discourage abuse
No, that's not obvious at all. A single event is evidence that some abuse still happens, it does not tell us how much more abuse there would be in the counterfactual where the history wasn't available.
discourage != prevent all
What would be a valid reason to allow this? That just seems mind-numbingly stupid.
This is particularly useful when editing the top-level comment of a popular issue to specify the current status. Or when a peer opened a placeholder issue and you fill it up. Etc.
If you actually use GitHub as a social network of sorts, there are many reasons to do edit comments. All the edits are visible anyway. You're on Git-Hub, you can already edit everything you have write access to.
In which world would you want others to be able to edit your posts in a “SOCIAL NETWORK”? In today’s age of misinformation? Greeeeeeeat idea.
For GitHub specifically? This world. This is a useful feature
Markdown is pretty tricky for new users to figure out, so quite often, users will just paste big snippets of code without formatting them, which is nearly unreadable. I'll usually edit these posts to add ```backticks``` around any code.
or they'll do what i assume is the jira style code blocks with just `multiple lines of code`
Censoring insults or illegal speech (depending on jurisdiction) would be the main reason I can think of.
in such case ability to delete comment would be enough
That also means that some users will be pressured to censor illegal speech no? If you live under e.g. a regime that disallows or discourages criticism, now suddenly the onus is on you to do something about those comments because you have the ability to. If you couldn't edit the comments it's not your fault.
Either way I think it's a pretty stupid feature the way it's implemented; it should show the edit more clearly or indicate that the comment has been written by multiple people (like StackOverflow does), especially if edits change more than e.g. 10% of the original comment.
I notice again I haven't fully internalized how much https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SuspiciouslySpec... happens IRL.
The responds and edits are simply unprofessional and immature. I don't hate AI and in fact I use it for many research based tasks, helping me narrowing a lot of tough topics, but it is the People with these kind of attitude turns me off.
AI use is fine, though pretending you haven't used it when you obviously did rubs me the wrong way.
I get why GitHub allows editing comments of other users though for public repos I guess it allows for this kind of abuse
Exactly, being dishonest is the real problem here.
Luckily, every edits are recorded in history, so they can't really hide their abusive behavior, for now. Even if they did, seem like there are often people faster in archiving their posts than they hiding their post.
I find GitHub to be very prompt and responsive to abuse reports, so I wouldn’t be surprised if it was them if people reported the comments etc.
Follow-up: seems they've been banned
The only public repo remaining under their github account is this VSCode-Copilot integration tool (https://github.com/zigbook/pilot).
It seems their whole account is gone now.
Did you make up A-Lot-AI? Can I suggest "A-Lott-a-AI"?
If you did, this is the greatest thing created in 3 ABC ("After Bullshit ChatGPTification"; ChatGPT launched in 2022.).
NB: Since ChatGPT is basically the new Messiah for many, I really think we should now be using dates like 3 ABC or 5 POS. POS stands for "Prior to Overlord Slop/Shit". I suggest we give up AD/BC.
But, please, I'm not the messiah! (hopefully you have watched Life of Brian!)
probably user reports to GitHub's moderation team
Had a conversation with the Zigbook maintainer. It’s either a young kid or somebody that has some serious growing up to do. Just generally weird behavior.
Indeed: @zigbook changed the title "Fix license violations" "Im mad because you wrote code similiar to mine >:(" 3 minutes ago (https://github.com/zigbook/zigbook/pull/43)
Wow. It's also an extremely reasonable pull request, here's the only commit: https://github.com/zigbook/zigbook/compare/main...SuperAugus...
I could sort of understand it if the PR used all sorts of judgemental/accusatory language or something. But it doesn't; it's straight-forward and factual. Outright bizarre behaviour.
help us, it's gone
Original commit: https://github.com/SuperAuguste/zigbook/commit/8cc9edd35b3e3...
[dead]
[flagged]
By that token, is the harmed party here also immature? Also do you work at GitHub and did he hurt your feelings by... being dead accurate as to several engineering failures?
I mean, focus on whatever you want, but he hasn't done anything Linus Torvalds hasn't done (at least similar enough).
Was that not changed after feedback?
Yes. https://github.com/ziglang/www.ziglang.org/commit/c8d046b288...
https://github.com/zigbook/zigbook/pull/45#issuecomment-3592... Would this be grounds to report zigbook to GitHub maybe? This is wild
Fear not I've mirrored it https://web.archive.org/web/20251130091635/https%3A%2F%2Fgit...
Sadly the important information, what was actually edited, isn't part of that mirror. (It's async fetched by the ui when clicking on the edit information on GitHub)
it's said something to paraphrase "I wonder what antisocial behaviour will be seen next instead of dealing with the feedback"
>Would this be grounds to report zigbook to GitHub maybe?
100%.
https://docs.github.com/en/communities/maintaining-your-safe...
The whole thing looks very childish, I'm not sure I even fully understand the conversation of #43. Are they troll accounts?
Oh wow. Your original comment is pretty darn prophetic.
Grifter or not, editing user comments to make it look like they're saying something they're not isn't okay.
Edit: It appears that the repo is gone? User removed it or GitHub?
zigbook edited a 3rd party comment to say "I’m autistic and sperging out over stuff on the internet that doesn’t actually matter. Don’t mind me."
Just your run off the mill AI grifter.
EDIT: https://lobste.rs/s/pbn3zy/zigbook_learn_zig_programming_lan...
"Quick research - author's actual profile is https://github.com/zk-evm, and he's a potential scammer from crypto spaces, who also happens to be running fake GitHub Organisation of the Cursor editor, along with related BuyMeACoffee claiming it being official page of the "Cursor AI Editor"."
> Quick research - author's actual profile is https://github.com/zk-evm
The account is called zig-vm now.
And here's his real github account: https://github.com/gweidart
How did you connect this account back to the "real" account?
The account had a link to a personal website, that (for now) has links to a few social medias and the "real" account.
That's a pretty strong link, nice work!
Well, the name of the "real" account is "zkevm.dev", and the previous account was zk-evm. Those are just letters to me, but it does seem like a clear link. Couldn't say that either is "real", though.
It is not. zk-evm refers to a type of blockchain. It's not a unique/singular link.
"zkevm.dev" is his domain, he uses it for email on all 3 accounts.
That's mostly just odd. Either a young teen way in over their head or a weirdly non-functional adult.
your other PR made me laugh: https://github.com/zigbook/zigbook/pull/46 absolutely wild that they had the gall to report you, lol
@Zigtools:
Thank you for your educative post, letting the community know.
Don't let it to drag you down in any way. This is emotionally draining and takes away motivation, but keep going.
Plagiarism is a moral wrong.
But copyright infringement is a legal wrong (a civil liability).
Is what they're doing infringing on a copyrighted work? Or does it fail to uphold license terms? Many open source licenses have some amount of attribution as a requirement, so that'd be something to consider.
It's addressed in the post. MIT license. Zigbook is not honoring the attribution requirement. A PR to change that was closed and obfuscated.
> Zigbook is not honoring the attribution requirement
It's crazy how many people treat MIT as if it were public domain.
I genuinely believe more people violate permissive licenses than copyleft license. I have no data to back this up, but just look at how much people focused on if LLMs were violating the GPL by reproducing code covered by the GPL without reproducing the license. If LLMs violate the GPL, they violate all licenses besides ones that are effectively public domain.
This probably depends on country, but AFAIK in most of europe, even in public domain, the „you can’t pass another’s work as your own” part of copyright is still active and doesn’t expire.
This piques my interest, what is the legally required recognition of a derivative's parent work? Must I be able to list dependencies, or should I be able to verify whether a parent work is included in mine? What if my work is a second derivative of a work which I am unaware of, because the work in between improperly didn't recognise its parent? Am I legally responsible to investigate such cases?
Something like, "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, by Jane Austen and Seth Grahame-Smith" is probably sufficient.
AI is actually beginning to encourage "restricted source", public-only-gets-binary debates to simply avoid such legal issues.
Write a snail-mail letter to get the real sources. Repositories are private with a small well-vetted list of contributors. Also avoid slop-PR headaches that away.
If you were licensing MIT, ostensibly it’s not the copying you care about, just the attribution. There is always the option to turn off prs, or even distribute code without using github.
GitHub has never allowed public repos to disable PRs in particular. There's no setting for that.
It's not directly possible, no, but with branch protection rules and this Github action it is trivial to set up: https://github.com/dessant/repo-lockdown
I just can't get over how ridicioulus the "no ai" statement is.
I really love the part where llm.txt has the same notice, something humans will never read, or the fact that llm.txt exists considering that there is distaste for AI in every part of this llm generated book.
"Not generated by AI" is something that every programmer everywhere is going to say about their own work, even when it's obviously AI generated. I've started to publicly call people out when I see they've posted something on social media (LinkedIn, etc.) when I see they've made an AI-generated post. The fraud has to stop.
There's also the option of embracing it.
https://github.com/Lillecarl/lix/commit/9ac72bbd0c7802ca83a9...
I'm not ashamed to use AI if it improves my output, people draw the line of "acceptable use" differently just like drug addicts talk shit about each other's drugs to justify their own. I think honesty is more important than cleanliness.
Kind of hard unfortunately, now when one gets evaluated how much we're improving our daily work with AI, when the annual feedback meeting comes.
The no AI devs will get a "needs improvement" report.
I've talked to people who got fired for not embracing AI, so go out there and say how much more productive you are even if it's a lie.
I stopped using linkedin once the mediapipe epidemic started and everyone who could type pip install mediapipe could write a half baked hand and face gesture demo to show themselves as the "cool programmer".
> I just can't get over how ridicioulus the "no ai" statement is
You don't have to. I'm sure there are lots of other communities that welcome low-effort slop with no effort put into it.
I remember reading the original zig book post and how weird it smelt. Even though it’s LLM written there’s more than a trivial amount of effort put into it. What could anyone possibly have to gain by doing this?
[dead]
I could see LLMs copying code as innocent mistake, but identical sha256sum on wasm files...jikes
original submission dicussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45947810
Gets worse: https://github.com/EclipseFdn/open-vsx.org/issues/6395
Playground wise, is Zigs wasm compiler able to compile out simd wasm in the browser? I'm trying to find the best languages that can. So far it's just assemblyscript and c/c++ and their compilers are big.
Disappointing.
When zigbook first appeared here, I took a cursory scan, and it looked pretty solid and a useful resource. Seems it duped me and got me good. I was even defending the use of AI a little - although the claim needed to go.
Seems they just were just trying to do over a nascent community that I'm interested in seeing growing and wasn't a member of yet.
Good riddance, then.
since zig is famously decentralized, i don't think there is a way to effectively combat bad actors like these? there is no "official zig org" that can disown them
Its the opposite in my understanding. Zig has a BDFL.
Trademarks are the usual cudgel of choice to enforce a bad actor claiming to be part of offcial Zig.
But he isn’t. He’s just writing an AI slop book about Zig. Surely there’s nothing legally wrong with that? He never said it’s an official book or backed by the Zig project.
The trademark cudgel is used on people who release an incompatible language that they insist on calling Zig, confusing people who want to try Zig. Or people who add malware to the Zig tool chain and try to distribute that.
Trademark can’t be used to control bad actors like zigbook.
Mm thats a good point. I'm not entirely clear on the limits of trademarks in this case. Its Zigbook rather then Zig.
> Surely there’s nothing legally wrong with that?
Incorrect. Not honoring the attribution requirement in the MIT license is a copyright infringement because it violates the terms of the license, which are legally enforceable conditions.
We are specifically talking about what the Zig project/foundation headed by Andy Kelley can do to such bad actors using the Zig trademark - which is exactly nothing.
I wouldn't be so quick with the "incorrect" if I were you. You haven't even taken the trouble to read two sentences.
In a decentralized but communicating community, this kind of post is raising awareness, and then the others in the community will make their own choices regarding the matter.
Whenever I hear anything about Zig it seems to be drama. Very bizarre, will avoid.
This isn’t anything to do with Zig though, it just happens to be the language that this crook chose.
They’ve could’ve picked Nim and done this whole spiel there (you’d want to pick a fledgling language that isn’t saturated with documentation, so the stalwarts aren’t usable).
Ditto... I love Zig as a language but I worry the high-level community builders (including Andrew) are a little too antagonistic to foster a positive, tolerant, patient community in the long term. In saying that, my infrequent interactions in the reddit and discord are always pleasant.
Actual Zig community spaces like Ziggit is very pleasant as far as programming language forums go. I think Zig just occupies a unique space in the language ecosystem (a very performance oriented, production oriented language that is not afraid to rapidly try things and throw them out if it doesn't meet expectations in practice - not many languages sit in the middle of this venn diagram) and people see it as an opportunity to gain a social foothold in something potentially great.
It seems like it might be in the nature of a language with these goals and this development process to attract people like this, no matter how warm and welcoming the community leaders are.
This is the first drama I've heard related to Zig, and seems to have nothing to do with the project itself–this is someone writing an online book about Zig
Zig has previously been involved in all kinds of drama. Including involving money, battles among developers, attempts to split/fork the language, and self-pushed conflicts with other programming languages. This is just the latest, in the long series.
There should be something of an OFAC Sanction List for SWE for people who blatantly transgress moral and ethical lines.
The only stupid thing here is that the zigtools playground is mit licensed, so all zigbook had to do was acknowledging original copyright.
And now it’s made private.
I wonder what tools the Zig team has to deal with trolls like this.
Is the zig name or logo trademarked? What about the mascot he's using as his github picture?
They're violating the terms of the MIT license as mentioned in the article, so maybe Zigtools has legal standing.
As for lying about no AI, being an asshole isn't illegal, so no angle there.
Any other ideas I missed?
Lying potentially opens up fraud angles if they are soliciting or receiving something of value. Maybe false advertising even they are giving it away for free. A lot of this will depend on who has jurisdiction
[flagged]
Neither are the Zigtools folks. If you've ever run an open source project, you know that instead of running on money, they run on community goodwill. Having people take the project's creation, claim it as their own, and not comply with the license, are all damaging to people's motivation to contribute.
Misinformation and poor learning tools can do real damage to the experience of new zig users, which is incredibly meaningful.
Censorship is even worse
Requesting attribution (as the MIT license demands), hardly rises to the level of "censorship"
I think they are referring to the fact that the zigbook maintainer defaced the PR that fixed the license issue by editing out the PR description.
Or deleting all the comments there.
Wtf is happening in the zig world this week