41–50 of 94 posts
Oh no where is Bun gonna be ported to next?
Nothing. You can always vibe-code in Rust even when the rust-lang/rust repository itself largely forbids vibe coding.
This policy does not seem to forbid vibe coding?
> Using an LLM to discover bugs, as long as you personally verify the bug, write it up yourself, and disclose that an LLM was used.
What are they going to do go back and reject a bug if someone later admits they found it with an LLM? Honestly they and most other project would probably be better off just ignoring the situation until norms start developing.
Some of these are just straight up unhinged. > Using an LLM to discover bugs, as long as you personally verify the bug, write it up yourself, and disclose that an LLM was used. What are they going to do go back and reject a bug if someone later admits they found it with an LLM? Honestly they and most other project would probably be better off just ignoring the situation until norms start developing.
That's in the "allowed with caveats" section. It's just saying to not open bug reports without first reading them yourself or your bug may be closed. No one is saying "by policy we will have to add the bug back in" jesus christ
The policy is insanely straightforward, idk how you can be misinterpreting it this badly. It's just "Disclose that you use a model, you are on the hook for reviewing model output as a human" and then some clear cut examples.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Like seriously, what's the point of explicitly allowing this? I would have LOVED if the university course I took last winter had this. I had to take a very paranoid attitude to what was allowed. What they're trying to avoid is a lot of unnecessary conflict with zealous anti-AI people calling for your exclusion for admitting to doing these things. There are people who would ban this too.
So then the Rust maintainers are going to give you an F on your report card?
Before you knee jerk hate on the team for being luddites, consider:
1. For a language like rust there’s too few eyes and too many mouths. Reviewing is a job, and is extremely taxing. 2. The code base needs to be highly hermetic because it’s load bearing across the global economy 3. Most changes are only relevant if they’ve followed extensive process, including community feedback.
[flagged]
Some of these are just straight up unhinged. > Using an LLM to discover bugs, as long as you personally verify the bug, write it up yourself, and disclose that an LLM was used. What are they going to do go back and reject a bug if someone later admits they found it with an LLM? Honestly they and most other project would probably be better off just ignoring the situation until norms start developing.
Does the policy fix the issue of many low quality PRs being submitted? Unlikely. Will it fix a related but different problem? Likely.
The people who submit low quality LLM-generated PRs often don't bother to read the policies first, but at least it will be easier to reject those.
Some of these are just straight up unhinged. > Using an LLM to discover bugs, as long as you personally verify the bug, write it up yourself, and disclose that an LLM was used. What are they going to do go back and reject a bug if someone later admits they found it with an LLM? Honestly they and most other project would probably be better off just ignoring the situation until norms start developing.
This policy is straightforward and shouldn't be particularly controversial (I'm sure it will be bikeshedded to death though). It basically bans the obvious stuff ("don't just drop LLM generated comments onto PRs") and allows the important stuff like LLMs writing code so long as you disclose. edit: Wow people did not read the policy. It's literally just "if you use an LLM you are responsible for it, we will reject low…
> It's fine to use LLMs to answer questions, analyze, distill, refine, check, suggest, review. But not to create.
> We carve out a space for "experimentation" to inform future revisions to this policy.
Importantly, the LLM contributions must be solicited, i.e., the people responsible for reviewing the final implementation have to opt in explicitly beforehand.