Comment by idle_zealot
6 hours ago
> Someone in the thread below says their bug was closed because of mentioning that they use AI to confirm the bug they had encountered
I don't know about this particular case, but if I saw someone report a bug and as evidence claim they had X Y and Z LLMs verify it I would be pretty upset. If you're going to use an LLM to make a replication, just do that and give me the replication, don't point to your notoriously error-prone tools as though they lend your report credence.
It's in a similar vein to people who reply to questions with "well Claude says: <chat transcript dump>"
> It's in a similar vein to people who reply to questions with "well Claude says: <chat transcript dump>"
or substantially worse: "<chat transcript dump>"
Human reproductions are notoriously error prone whether ai assisted or not right? I’m not sure what the analogy is between “llms are error prone” and “thoughtlessly copy-pasting something from Claude” is.
Human reproductions don't have to be bad. It feels just as justified to push back on a bad bug report whether human or AI and say "I don't have enough to go on here".
If a report is improved and becomes actionable, that's great.
Hey, we're all the result of human reproductions.
1 reply →
I feel very torn as a maintainer on this, since the only way to respond to the increased noise from AI has been to have AI do the research for me to extract all the links and line numbers I used to have to find by hand to explain why the PR needs more effort to be completed. But I also will be highly dismissive of any submitter who just posts AI text without cleaning it up first. It feels hypocritical, but the alternative is that I just can’t respond to most people instead due to limited bandwidth. I mark if something comes directly from the LLM though and to try to express my degree of confidence in its claims.