Reading this article in the context of the Zig folks refusing to even consider LLM-generated bugs certainly shapes my perspective on what technologies will be in my toolchain.
Zig devs can run Mythos same as anyone else can. I think you are failing to understand the reasoning behind their decision. It's about contributors, not contributions.
> No LLMs for comments on the bug tracker, including translation. English is encouraged, but not required. You are welcome to post in your native language and rely on others to have their own translation tools of choice to interpret your words.
If they would accept issues filed by AI or written by AI, they should edit their policy to say that.
None of that is at odds with what I said. An AI isn't a human that you can invest time into developing into a contributor. I'm not sure what you aren't understanding. Did you read the article I linked?
I did and I read it previously. It has not changed my interpretation that the Zig project would decline issues mostly generated by LLMs due to their stated policy saying so.
If you’re saying their philosophy is compatible with LLM issues, I agree and I think they should change their policy to reflect that.
Both are right and it depends on which model you use and who submits those bugs. The capabilities of leading models went from 99% noise to 99% valid bugs in essentially a few months. Some projects are flooded with the former and need to take precautions to avoid essential DoS attacks on the maintainers.
Yeah but Zig essentially has till Mythos releases (and arguably less time) to fix their policy. OSS that doesn't take LLM security reports at that point is a liability.
https://kristoff.it/blog/contributor-poker-and-ai/