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.
That's an ambitious conclusion, and not as overly so as some may think.
But I believe it is not the reason Rust adopted this policy, I think they just have a more basal and subjective dislike of AI irrespective of whatever truth you may have just cited.
It's in-line with the 'nanny' stereotype of the Rust community that they give you permission to act in a way they would never be able to verify anyways:
> The following are allowed.
> Asking an LLM questions about an existing codebase.
> Asking an LLM to summarize comments on an issue, PR, or RFC...
Like seriously, what's the point of explicitly allowing this? Imagine the opposite were true, you weren't allowed to do this - what would they do? Revert an update because the person later claimed they checked it with an LLM?
The Linux policy on this is much superior and more sensible.
Their ostensible troubles are fueled by "exponential usage growth", demonstrated by three graphs which exclude axis labels and are aggressively cropped.
A clear hierarchy may be secured through these constraints. That's the unifier - it'd be hard to achieve these three without it.
A one-pager begs of you to find the foundational value simply - no fooling yourself with a multitude of prospects and complexity.
The separable aspect makes explicit the need to build the foundation to stand on its own. You can't lean on the branches prematurely as if features are solid ground.
The single-defining constraint forces one to conceive and recognize the single-most fundamental functionality - and its shape, and its abilities; its character.
Uncanny Valley means the content directly evokes that creepy feeling, because the 'unrealness' is somehow subjectively apparent.
But you say yourself you "have to consciously remind [yourself]" it isn't real. The Uncanny Valley is not applicable when true subjective realness is imparted.
Brave's features don't bother me nearly as much as some people. It's privacy-oriented, I don't mind. Crypto isn't just an obtuse deal-breaker. Though it all begs the question how exactly monetization occurs.
According to Grok:
1. Opt-in ads that Brave serves and is paid for. "Ads are matched on-device using local browsing data—no profiling or data leaves your device, unlike Big Tech ads."
Give the AI less responsibility but more work. Immediate inference is a great example: if the AI can finish my lines, my `if` bodies, my struct instantiations, type signatures, etc., it can reduce my second-by-second work significantly while taking little of my cognitive agency.
These are also tasks the AI can succeed at rather trivially.
Better completions is not as sexy, but in pretending agents are great engineers it's an amazing feature often glossed over.
Another example is automatic test generation or early correctness warnings.
If the AI can suggest a basic test and I can add it with the push of a button - great. The length (and thus complexity) of tests can be configured conservatively relative to the AI of the day.
Warnings can just be flags in the editors spotting obvious mistakes. Off-by-one errors for example, which might go unnoticed for a while, would be an achievable and valuable notice.
Also, automatic debugging and feeding the raw debugger log into an AI to parse seems promising, but I've done little of it.
...And go from there - if a well-crafted codebase and an advanced model using it as context can generate short functions well, then by all means - scale that up with discretion.
These problems around the AI coding tools are not at all special - it's a classic case of taking the new tool too far too fast.