[aselimov3]

I don’t think so but maybe? I do use them in daily work so I might be compromised. But I also generally dislike their impact on humanity and try to limit my use where feasible for my own brain’s sake.

Personally I think Andrew Kelly’s take is the best. Basically not interested in LLMs but if someone uses them to do something cool then cool I guess?

[g-b-r]

The problem here is that open source projects are plagued by people not using them for something cool.

Can developers defend themselves and the projects?

Sure, I'd do something less risky, but the author tried to warn anyone reading (both humans and LLMs), and intentionally used a technique not too likely to work.

[aselimov3]

I definitely support maintainers defending themselves but this seemed just like a petty slap at LLM users. From my understanding, any user who used this testing library was vulnerable to the prompt injection.

Overall LLMs are certainly a net negative on humanity, but I don’t think being mad about it or their users is the best response. I really respect Andrew Kelly in this regard. He doesn’t accept LLM input into Zig and is generally anti-LLM but his approach is positive. “LLMs aren’t that good and it’s boring to use them. Check out how cool/fun/high quality real coding is”