Basically the same sentiment "machine output is raw data, log, sloppy outline" from mathematicians talking about LLM-generated proofs and how to embrace the slop there:
https://youtu.be/LKrwhjOI8Nc?si=-qI0GbJo0rTSSWTW&t=1391 On Mon, Oct 19, 2026 at 1:43 PM Mikolaj Konarski <[email protected]> wrote: > > I find in myself that a lot of my aggression at LLMs > is triggered via uncanny valley on an unconscious level > and the similar "if you are so smart, why are you so dumb, > making mistakes or permitting me to make them --- it must be > to spite me" on the conscious level. So instead of trying to make > LLMs behave (e.g., write) like a human co-worker would, I now > instead embraced the slop. > > I let LLMs dump all the slop they want into commit messages > and dedicated slop-files and state-files. This sometimes helps > them not to be as dumb or protect me from being so dumb > and it helps me remember they are not human. I find the GHC > issue tracker organically evolved practice of wrapping particularly > sloppy LLM texts in <details> very wise, similar to what you'd do > to long logs appended to a message. I hope gitlab gets a <slop> > tag soon. > > Would I file an issue ticket with just one sentence and a long > <details> log? Probably not. Maybe if the log is totally self-evident? > Maybe with five sentences? Are GHC devs justified to demand > more than the log? Obviously so. > > Thank you for you patience, > Mikolaj _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
