Potential issues in curl found using AI assisted tools

Post by nl » Fri, Oct 03, 2025, 12:11 PM UTC

SAI_Peregrinus wrote: post #40

Sharlin wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a point I see discussed surprisingly little. Given that many (most?) programmers like designing and writing code (excluding boilerplate), and not particularly enjoy reviewing code, it certainly feels backwards to make the AI write the code and relegate the programmer to reviewing it. (I know, of course, that the whole thing is being sold to stakeholders as "LoC machine goes brrrr" – code review? what's that?)

Creativity is fun. AIs automate that away. I want an AI that can do my laundry, fold it, and put it away. I don't need an AI to write code for me. I don't mind AI code review, it sometimes has a valid suggestion, and it's easy enough to ignore most of the rest of the time.

Post by Thorrez » Fri, Oct 03, 2025, 1:29 PM UTC

pliny wrote: post #137

Brian_K_White wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No you can't. You can only pay to transfer them to someone else on top of their own. It's fundamentally different from how a machine or some code makes a task actually go away or at least become smaller.

There are already cheap, domestic robots for cleaning dishes, cleaning the floor, cleaning clothes, making coffee, heating and cooling food, turning screws, drilling holes and so on. All those robots represent a greater than 90 percent (and sometimes a greater than 99 percent) savings in time relative to doing the same tasks manually. You still have to move the objects they operate on around within your house but tha…

Post by NegativeK » Fri, Oct 03, 2025, 2:01 PM UTC

stocksinsmocks wrote: post #113

athorax wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the big difference is that these aren't AI generated bug reports. They are bugs found with the assistance of AI tools that were then properly vetted and reported in a responsible way by a real person.

In the defense of the language models, the bugs were written by humans in the first place. Human vetting is not much of a defense.

Post by fourseventy » Fri, Oct 03, 2025, 2:54 PM UTC

codr7 wrote: post #122

chrischen wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. I loved doing novel implementations or abstractions… and the AI excels at the part where it modifies it slightly for different contexts… aka the boring stuff.

But this is how you learn, how you find better ways, by grinding. Getting wild ideas badly implemented on a silver plate is a slot machine, it leads nowhere but in circles.

Post by sumeno » Fri, Oct 03, 2025, 3:36 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #18

simonw wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's more about how people are using it. An amateur who spams him with GPT-5-Codex produced bug reports is still a waste of his time. Here a professional ran the tools and then applied their own judgement before sending the results to the curl maintainers.

I keep irritating people with this observation but this was the status quo ante before AI, and at least an AI slop report shows clear intent; you can ban those submitters without even a glance at anything else they send.