BrikoX
Linux.zipMultiple researchers using the same tools to find the same bugs are creating ‘unnecessary pain and pointless work’
I've found that the LLMs tend to over classify and nitpick a fair bit, often missing broader context that accounts for the flaw being tolerated or undiscovered.
They're not wrong, but have no context for triage and so give far too many results. It forces you to consider an LLM subscription yourself just to keep up with the other LLM users which is starting to feel like some form of zero sum red queen's race.
The tsunami of reports won't be receding for a while yet, and we can only hope the teams on the receiving end don't drown in it.
Welcome to AI
@yogthos@lemmy.ml
Yeah, there's a ton of spam now. My view is that devs should use LLMs themselves to scan for issues, and then see if there's anything to fix. But when it comes to accepting reports or patches, you kind of have to be selective. A lot of the time stuff LLMs will flag can be either hallucinated, or not really an issue. A lot of the reports come from automated systems that don't really do any due diligence to figure out if something is an actual issue that needs addressing. So, I can definitely understand why projects might want to stop accepting random bug reports or code submissions going forward.
I figured you'd probably be sympathetic.
The next few years are going to be interesting because we're moving into uncharted territory in a lot of ways. There's a ton of hype around LLMs, and tons of people abusing this tech in every which way, and then there are useful nuggets where people figure out how to apply it effectively. Eventually we'll need to figure out how to suppress the noise and how to start using these things in productive ways.
