On Wednesday, 11 March 2026 07:31:27 UTC Jean Louis wrote: > * chris <[email protected]> [2026-03-09 22:40]: > > I completely understand the problem of having to sift through large > > amounts of poor code that arrive frequently. > > > > But how can you tell whether the code was generated by an LLM? > > > > The problem with LLMs is that poor code can easily resemble good code, > > which makes triage more difficult. > > > > Again: how can you tell if the code is from an LLM and, if so, to what > > extent? > > > > It's a complicated question to enforce in practice. > > Thank you for confirmation! > > I understand how maintainers try to “minimize their burden,” but they > are imposing impossible and unenforceable conditions, effectively > adding to their workload. > > Instead of focusing on which user used which LLM to correct or > generate code, maintainers should focus on the usefulness of the
Actually, I'm not sure that I agree, especially regarding the usefulness aspect. I don't think there is any. First, there's bad code masquerading as good code, which creates a heavy workload for the maintainer and doesn't produce any useful work. It's akin to a DOS attack on reviewer. Second, clicking the button that says, "Please fix that bug and send the patch to the maintainer. Don't bother showing me the code; I don't care," doesn't carry out any work, and therefore isn't useful. It's useful if someone else does measurable work for you. However, clicking carries an area under the work curve equal to zero. Therefore, there is no help there. > contribution and properly instruct users on how to guide those LLMs to > produce correct code. > > In other words, focus on quality, not on means.
