alt Hacker News> It may surprise some people here to see that Andrew is warming up to using LLMs to discover bugs (inspired by results from SQLlite) and considers it a tool on the path to getting to bug free software.
Someone in the thread below says their bug was closed because of mentioning that they use AI to confirm the bug they had encountered. Is he going to go back and reopen all of those now that he learned what pretty much everyone else already knew?
Replies
itishappy • today at 10:50 PM
Why? Shouldn't everybody already know that using AI to find bugs for oneself is amazingly efficient, but using AI to submit bug reports for others is quite the opposite. Burden of verification and all.
➕ show 1 reply
vitaminCPP • today at 10:47 PM
citation needed
nelox • today at 11:03 PM
[flagged]
> 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>"