# Zig 项目坚持反人工智能贡献政策的理由 - 来源：Hacker News 热门（buzzing.cc 中文翻译） - 作者：lumpa - 发布时间：2026-04-30 13:49 - AIHOT 分数：58 - AIHOT 链接：https://aihot.virxact.com/items/cmol590i500g3slc56oec2aax - 原文链接：https://simonwillison.net/2026/Apr/30/zig-anti-ai ## AI 摘要 Zig编程语言项目坚持其严格的反人工智能贡献政策，明确拒绝接受任何由AI生成或辅助编写的代码提交。项目维护者认为，AI生成的代码存在版权与许可证不清晰、代码质量难以保障、以及可能引入安全漏洞等风险。此举旨在确保代码库的纯粹性、可维护性以及法律上的明确性，强调人类贡献者的理解和责任至关重要。该政策在开发者社区引发广泛讨论，获得了超过100个Hacker News点赞支持。 ## 正文 Simon Willison’s Weblog 30th April 2026 Zig has one of the most stringent anti-LLM policies of any major open source project: No LLMs for issues. No LLMs for pull requests. No LLMs for comments on the bug tracker, including translation. English is encouraged, but not required. You are welcome to post in your native language and rely on others to have their own translation tools of choice to interpret your words. No LLMs for issues. No LLMs for pull requests. No LLMs for comments on the bug tracker, including translation. English is encouraged, but not required. You are welcome to post in your native language and rely on others to have their own translation tools of choice to interpret your words. The most prominent project written in Zig may be the Bun JavaScript runtime, which was acquired by Anthropic in December 2025 and, unsurprisingly, makes heavy use of AI assistance. Bun operates its own fork of Zig, and recently achieved a 4x performance improvement on Bun compile after adding "parallel semantic analysis and multiple codegen units to the llvm backend". Here's that code. But @bunjavascript says: We do not currently plan to upstream this, as Zig has a strict ban on LLM-authored contributions. We do not currently plan to upstream this, as Zig has a strict ban on LLM-authored contributions. (Update: here's a Zig core contributor providing details on why they wouldn't accept that particular patch independent of the LLM issue - parallel semantic analysis is a long planned feature but has implications "for the Zig language itself".) In Contributor Poker and Zig's AI Ban (via Lobste.rs) Zig Software Foundation VP of Community Loris Cro explains the rationale for this strict ban. It's the best articulation I've seen yet for a blanket ban on LLM-assisted contributions: In successful open source projects you eventually reach a point where you start getting more PRs than what you’re capable of processing. Given what I mentioned so far, it would make sense to stop accepting imperfect PRs in order to maximize ROI from your work, but that’s not what we do in the Zig project. Instead, we try our best to help new contributors to get their work in, even if they need some help getting there. We don’t do this just because it’s the “right” thing to do, but also because it’s the smart thing to do. In successful open source projects you eventually reach a point where you start getting more PRs than what you’re capable of processing. Given what I mentioned so far, it would make sense to stop accepting imperfect PRs in order to maximize ROI from your work, but that’s not what we do in the Zig project. Instead, we try our best to help new contributors to get their work in, even if they need some help getting there. We don’t do this just because it’s the “right” thing to do, but also because it’s the smart thing to do. Zig values contributors over their contributions. Each contributor represents an investment by the Zig core team - the primary goal of reviewing and accepting PRs isn't to land new code, it's to help grow new contributors who can become trusted and prolific over time. LLM assistance breaks that completely. It doesn't matter if the LLM helps you submit a perfect PR to Zig - the time the Zig team spends reviewing your work does nothing to help them add new, confident, trustworthy contributors to their overall project. Loris explains the name here: The reason I call it “contributor poker” is because, just like people say about the actual card game, “you play the person, not the cards”. In contributor poker, you bet on the contributor, not on the contents of their first PR. The reason I call it “contributor poker” is because, just like people say about the actual card game, “you play the person, not the cards”. In contributor poker, you bet on the contributor, not on the contents of their first PR. This makes a lot of sense to me. It relates to an idea I've seen circulating elsewhere: if a PR was mostly written by an LLM, why should a project maintainer spend time reviewing and discussing that PR as opposed to firing up their own LLM to solve the same problem? Recent articles Publishing WASM wheels to PyPI for use with Pyodide - 13th June 2026 Claude Fable is relentlessly proactive - 11th June 2026 Initial impressions of Claude Fable 5 - 9th June 2026 This is a note by Simon Willison, posted on 30th April 2026. Monthly briefing Sponsor me for $10/month and get a curated email digest of the month's most important LLM developments. Pay me to send you less! Disclosures Colophon © 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026