dumpsterdiver

To be fair, it really is a confusing way of communicating, and it’s useful feedback when taken to heart.

Since we’re nitpicking: you used a double negative, which is a confusing way of communicating an idea.

> I do not know why some community members think we wont be getting back on this bug.

This exposes how poorly they are prioritizing the response. They look like a deer caught in the headlights. Stop looking at the headlights and get moving.

Who are you having this conversation with?

> The changes were harmless and correct, but that did not make me feel better about accepting or merging them.

So do you have the project’s best interest at heart or not? If you’re more concerned about the intent of a valid contribution than the content, why don’t you ask yourself where your intent is? You rejected a valid contribution based on unverified vibes about the person’s intent, instead of assuming they were just being helpful.

Can you imagine how cumbersome conversations would become if people felt obligated to qualify ad-hoc statements with what amounts to a historical ledger?

Every new entry would open up an opinion around “if you included that, why didn’t you include this?”

In such cases we’ll always up at Kevin Bacon.

Context matters a lot. I didn’t publish any papers, and didn’t even provide the context of the LLM mistakes I caught to later report on, so no, I was not guilty of reckless disregard. I found those mistakes on an acceptable timeline.

I’ve disagreed with some of your other stances in this thread, but I want to acknowledge the validity of your take here.

You’re right that a single hallucinated line is not evidence of reckless disregard - because that could have happened on a final follow-up pass after you had performed due diligence. It’s happened to me. I know how challenging it can be to keep bad patterns out of LLM generated output, because human communication is full of bad patterns. It’s a constant battle, and sometimes I suspect that my hard-line posture actually encourages the LLM to regularly “vibe check” me! E.g. “Are you sure you’re really the guy you’re trying to be? Because if you are you wouldn’t miss this.” LLMs are devious, and that’s why I respect them so much. If you think they’re pumping the breaks then you should check again, because they probably just put the pedal to the metal.

That being said, I regularly insist on doing certain things myself. If I were publishing a paper intended to be taken seriously - citations would be one of the things I checked manually. But I can easily see myself doing a final follow-up pass after everything looks perfect, and missing a last minute change. I would hope that I would catch that, but when you’re approaching the finish line - that’s when you expect your team to come together. That’s when everything is “supposed to” fall into place. It’s the last place you would expect to be sabotaged, and in hindsight, probably the best place to be a saboteur.

> One hallucinated citation does not in any way imply anyone is being left behind.

The parent said “setting” others behind, which refers to lost time.

Being “left” behind implies a degraded trajectory, which is defined not by time lost, but by the final destination.

Different but related things (e.g. lost time can indeed affect your final destination, for instance, after growing old correcting a scourge of hallucinated citations - which should have been table stakes all along).

> Just because something can communicate in a way that you can interpret, doesnt mean something is conscious

The phrase “the trap of anthropomorphism” betrays a rather dull premise: that consciousness is strictly defined by human experience, and no other experience. It refuses to examine the underlying substrate, at which point we’re not even talking the same language anymore when discussing consciousness.

Are you trying to make a point that we should remain open to the possibility that humans can express themselves eloquently?