Collin Funk writes: > Adhemerval Zanella Netto writes: > >> gnulib guys seem to be experimenting with LLM for patch review recently [1], >> and it has uncovered real regressions [2]. And I recall that their >> experience with Coverity has been subpar [3], and I think they even started >> disregarding it. >> >> Personally, I see value in adding an LLM to the patch review phase, especially >> since we lack manpower and initial triage can help newcomers and uncover some >> issues. > > I don't have access to Gnulib's coverity, but GNU coreutils shows a lot > of Gnulib stuff anyways. My feeling is that it is useful, but one has to > do some work to filter out perfectly legitimate code (e.g., the coverity > machine complains about type limit comparisons which may be different on > less common platforms). > This is a common sentiment I hear with Coverity. Generally useful but need people to do the work on reviewing findings and keep on top of that. > I don't disagree that LLM review is useful. However, I do want to state > my *personal* opinions here as I did in that Gnulib thread. Anthropic > (and OpenAI, which has a similar program) tend to play this program up > to show how altruistic and great they are. However, the 6 month limit > makes it seem like a strategic plan to gain future subscribers. It appears that it's also not some specific offer they've made to our community: https://claude.com/contact-sales/claude-for-oss and https://www.anthropic.com/claude-for-oss-terms. I think it unfortunately acts as advertising. I am sure that was not the intent but it seems to be the effect nonetheless :( > [...] sam