Most of inner London doesn't need a car at all.

Now they have 13k lines of someone else’s mess (the AIs) to manage instead.

But this is a different kind of problem.

With legacy systems, at least the complexity was somewhat anticipated early in the design process (even if it was incorrect).

With automatically generated code, you get something that "works" but with a much vaguer underlying model, which makes it harder to understand when things start to go wrong.

In both cases, the real cost comes later, when you're forced to debug under pressure.

The primary purpose is not usually a list of known defects and many ‘bugs’ are not actually bugs but feature requests or misunderstandings from users (e.g. RFC disallows the data you want my html parser to allow).

> The primary purpose is not usually a list of known defects and many ‘bugs’ are not actually bugs but feature requests

IME there are separate mechanisms to track feature work, bug trackers are for... bugs.

> or misunderstandings from users (e.g. RFC disallows the data you want my html parser to allow).

Again, this is a class of bug report that nobody is arguing should stay open.

The people who filed them would disagree and many would vehemently argue that their bug is in fact a bug, and is the most important bug and how dare you close it.

Attention very time you look at the bugs list.

That's what labels are for.

Bug reports are not known defects, at any kind of scale half of them will be already fixed, misunderstandings, bad data in, or related to an unusual setup.

Closing the bug is a way of saying: sorry this doesn’t look too important and we don’t have time to look at this given the other more important things (bugs/features) we plan to work on.

If it’s closed as stale after 6-12 months (multiple humans will have seen it) OR triaged by a human and marked as won’t fix I think that’s reasonable.

> at any kind of scale half of them will be already fixed, misunderstandings, bad data in,

Here you're referring to a class of bug reports that's uninteresting for this discussion, because they're invalid (i.e. they don't represent an actual bug). We're talking about valid bugs that have not been fixed.

> or related to an unusual setup

Unusual, but ostensibly supported? Then there exists a bug.

These rules are in place because that first class of 'bugs' is the majority of bug reports when you are at scale.

Not really no, you got the support you were willing to pay for.

If the maintainer merely doesn't fix the bug, then yes. If they close the bug report so it gets lost and other contributors are discouraged from working on it, then no.

Closed reports are not lost, they are still searchable/linkable, they are just not in the list of work to do.

This is entirely up to the maintainer, who puts in the work and gives up their time/money to do so. If you want to be in charge on a given repo, put in the work and become a real contributor, if not accept the rules the maintainers choose.

You know what I mean. If the issue is closed, it looks like it's been solved. A new issue may be created that duplicates it, etc.

Obviously it's up to the maintainer. I'm saying what the maintainer should do, not what they can do.

Dupe reports are a signal all by themselves, that's really not harmful, nor does something being closed implied solved.

You shouldn't presume to know what is best for an open source maintainer of any given project - projects vary, reports vary in quality, and the job of maintenance is not an easy one.

Really quite disturbing that you can now generate this kind of slop in minutes.

https://pestpro.app/blog/

Let's be honest here, why did you generate this just now, are you hoping for work building mobile apps, or are you sincerely expecting to run a pest control SaaS business with AI generated blog posts and a download link that doesn't work?

You've done the incredibly easy bit (making a prototype), do you intend to do the hard work of building a business over 10+ years?

It doesn’t reason or explicitly follow instructions, it generates plausible text given a context.

But it does need to know personal info to be useful as an agent (calendars, email). The danger is that it’s a hassle to vet every bit of data, and to be useful it needs to know a lot, leading to oversharing, and if you use it long enough you will leak secrets that you didn’t want to leak.

Were you this excited about crypto and NFTs as well?