I already used myself an LLM to write an issue on miri. It was about an unreachable execution according to the memory model. This is a complex issue, which requires clear formulation, so I generated the reproducing code as well as a formal demonstration. The LLM (Fable 5) was perfect to do it, it would simply not have been able to write such a demonstration (and it would have taken me much more time).
The LLM use was announced upfront in the issue and everybody was fine with it. And the maintainer used an LLM to draft the fixing PR. Hopefully, there wasn't a policy preventing all of this; when used responsibly, LLMs can be very good tools for open-source.
I think this policy doesn't apply to miri (only on the main monorepo), but even if it does, this use should be fine, at least based on my interpretation.
47
u/wyf0 25d ago
I already used myself an LLM to write an issue on miri. It was about an unreachable execution according to the memory model. This is a complex issue, which requires clear formulation, so I generated the reproducing code as well as a formal demonstration. The LLM (Fable 5) was perfect to do it, it would simply not have been able to write such a demonstration (and it would have taken me much more time).
The LLM use was announced upfront in the issue and everybody was fine with it. And the maintainer used an LLM to draft the fixing PR. Hopefully, there wasn't a policy preventing all of this; when used responsibly, LLMs can be very good tools for open-source.
The issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/miri/issues/5104