Re: Policy on use of LLM tools and bug fixes

> > I'd also not accept big infrastructure designed by LLMs.  I still hope for
> > sensible use of LLMs for GCC, like finishing long neglected partial
> > transitions.  I do not think LLMs are ready to implement new compiler
> > features.
> 
> Yes, that seems to be a safe and sensible middle ground, in other words to 
> limit changes to the local "scope" so that any mistakes made are also local.
> Something (slightly) above mechanical, but certainly nowhere near global.

I'd want to clarify this a little bit.  I wouldn't want to accept big
infrastructure changes *designed* by LLMs, but have no problems
accepting big infrastructure changes *implemented* by LLMs.  As an
example, if I told an LLM "take this compiler and change the internal
representation so that instead of using integers to represent
constants, use the XYZ multi-precision package", I'd be comfortable
accepting that result (assuming it was properly reviewed, of course).
Indeed, I'd almost be *more* comfortable accepting that change if done
by an LLM than if it were done by a human since a human is far more
likely to miss a case than an LLM is!