Filed a compiler bug related to dwarf tables that screws up debugging and line of code coverage that they completely ignored, just because I mentioned that I had every LLM check it to confirm it's a bug, since all I know is what kcov and every coverage tool generates incorrect coverage data for my repo, for 100% certain.
Wow I thought surely they wouldn't object to using AI to confirm bugs, but they really do.
Tbf I guess as a popular open source project not using AI to fix bugs, they probably already have more open bugs than they can ever fix so it doesn't really help them for people to find more.
I would imagine his bug was actually ignored just because Zig has 2700 open bugs, rather than some AI policy violation.
Claude Code has 13.4k open bugs: <a href="https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues
Show me a popular open source project that doesn't have a large number of open issues and I'll show you one that has a triage bot auto-close them.
Some have both, despite using an auto-close bot! OC is at 4.6K open and 24K closed issues. <a href="https://github.com/anomalyco/opencode/issues" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/anomalyco/opencode/issues
Gotta admit it's weird that they haven't set up Claude to fix them! Tbf my threshold for "AI now writes good enough code" was Astra or Opus 5.5 and they only just released that.
They don’t, at least not any more. Andrew Kelley has explicitly stated that he sees the value of using LLMs to uncover bugs. Inspired by sqllite project.
They may just be taking the slow route of rejecting by default until they can be sure that the usage of LLMs provides long term value. I don’t see anything wrong with that. If you’re writing robust software, using LLMs at this stage is a bit of a gamble. We don’t fully know the long term effects on code quality yet.
Project maintainers know what level of AI use is acceptable for themselves, and quantifying it and enforcing it for random contributors is very difficult.
He sees the value of using LLMs... only after performing NASA-level verification and fully comprehensive fuzzing using traditional tools. Since Zig has not done those things, LLM-generated bugs are still banned.
jabedude · · focus · HN ↗
abc42 · · focus · HN ↗
onlyrealcuzzo · · focus · HN ↗
bendmorris · · focus · HN ↗
IshKebab · · focus · HN ↗
Tbf I guess as a popular open source project not using AI to fix bugs, they probably already have more open bugs than they can ever fix so it doesn't really help them for people to find more.
I would imagine his bug was actually ignored just because Zig has 2700 open bugs, rather than some AI policy violation.
bendmorris · · focus · HN ↗
Show me a popular open source project that doesn't have a large number of open issues and I'll show you one that has a triage bot auto-close them.
esafak · · focus · HN ↗
IshKebab · · focus · HN ↗
acedTrex · · focus · HN ↗
audunw · · focus · HN ↗
<a href="https://youtu.be/zwi5b5xSsKA?is=PTjJJjSnVMdRuZag" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/zwi5b5xSsKA?is=PTjJJjSnVMdRuZag
They may just be taking the slow route of rejecting by default until they can be sure that the usage of LLMs provides long term value. I don’t see anything wrong with that. If you’re writing robust software, using LLMs at this stage is a bit of a gamble. We don’t fully know the long term effects on code quality yet.
saghm · · focus · HN ↗
unleaded · · focus · HN ↗
Capricorn2481 · · focus · HN ↗
csande17 · · focus · HN ↗