I don't know about this particular case, but if I saw someone report a bug and as evidence claim they had X Y and Z LLMs verify it I would be pretty upset. If you're going to use an LLM to make a replication, just do that and give me the replication, don't point to your notoriously error-prone tools as though they lend your report credence.
It's in a similar vein to people who reply to questions with "well Claude says: <chat transcript dump>"
or substantially worse: "<chat transcript dump>"
If a report is improved and becomes actionable, that's great.
- using the LLM to find (possible) bugs and a human confirms it by testing, reviewing, etc.
- using the LLM to find and confirm the bug without the human confirming it, just trusts and believes LLM
In the state of the tagged video he says still not accepting AI submissions until a certain set of preconditions is met. So... No?
Bug fixes should get the same treatment. A patch is either correct or it isn't. Projects that ban AI-written fixes outright are asking "who wrote this?" instead of "is this right?", and users live with the bug in the meantime.
I get why maintainers are fed up. Review time is scarce, and they're drowning in plausible-looking garbage. But that's a problem with low-quality submissions, not with AI as such. Require tests, require a human who vouches for the patch and will answer for it, and ban repeat offenders. Then hold every patch to that same bar, whoever or whatever wrote it.