[eudamoniac]

They're not mad about the bug, they're mad about the cause of the bug. This is like city council starts flinging stones with a trebuchet into streets, and you're expected to calmly file pothole reports instead of complaining about the trebuchet.

[soerxpso]

Bugs exist in human code too. The AI derangement crowd pounces on any small bug as evidence that AI is a trebuchet, and thinks that if only we didn't use AI there would never be any bugs (like five years ago when all software was perfect, was not being enshittified, and had 0 bugs).

[bakugo]

> Bugs exist in human code too.

These bugs did not exist in human code. They were introduced by AI.

> thinks that if only we didn't use AI there would never be any bugs

Strawman. These bugs would not exist if not introduced by AI.

[Sacho]

The bugs were introduced because rsync had security issues(i.e. bugs) in it, presumably written into the code by humans.

It's really baffling to see so many people in this thread maintain the position that somehow software was clean and pristine until AI touched it with its evil.

Please try to at least put some sort of constructive argument forward, for example - I don't like AI because it might introduce more bugs than a careful human reviewer. Then we could discuss why a single maintainer is responsible for rsync and how they should handle the pressure of keeping it up to date - should they just stop making further changes, should they look for tools that might help them?

(By the way, if your position is that rsync was perfect before AI got its hands on it, you have a clear solution to all your problems - simply do not update to any newer versions)

Either way, move away from this absolutist nonsense that has no bearing to reality.

[bakugo]

> It's really baffling to see so many people in this thread maintain the position that somehow software was clean and pristine until AI touched it with its evil.

Nobody maintains this position. Again, it's a strawman you made up, because it's easier to dismiss such "absolutist nonsense" than it is to just admit that these specific bugs were introduced as a direct result of careless AI usage.

If the developer is overwhelmed by the maintenance burden (they aren't, judging by how many AI commits they've been making to a large number of repositories), then that's an entirely different problem that deserves a good faith discussion, but delegating the work to AI is not the correct solution.

> By the way, if your position is that rsync was perfect before AI got its hands on it

Again, strawman, nobody said this either. In fact, quite the opposite - we want rsync to continue to be maintained by a human. If the current developer isn't interested in or capable of maintaining the project anymore, they should just say so instead of quietly letting AI take over, because then the likelihood of someone else stepping up to contribute would be much higher.