Re: Nominations for Anthropic’s Claude for Open Source program

On 6/12/26 7:46 PM, Collin Funk wrote:
> Adhemerval Zanella Netto <[email protected]> writes:
> 
>> gnulib guys seem to be experimenting with LLM for patch review recently [1],
>> and it has uncovered real regressions [2]. And I recall that their
>> experience with Coverity has been subpar [3], and I think they even started
>> disregarding it.
>>
>> Personally, I see value in adding an LLM to the patch review phase, especially
>> since we lack manpower and initial triage can help newcomers and uncover some
>> issues.
> 
> I don't have access to Gnulib's coverity, but GNU coreutils shows a lot
> of Gnulib stuff anyways. My feeling is that it is useful, but one has to
> do some work to filter out perfectly legitimate code (e.g., the coverity
> machine complains about type limit comparisons which may be different on
> less common platforms).

Agreed. That's generally been the case with glibc too.

> I don't disagree that LLM review is useful. However, I do want to state
> my *personal* opinions here as I did in that Gnulib thread. Anthropic
> (and OpenAI, which has a similar program) tend to play this program up
> to show how altruistic and great they are. However, the 6 month limit
> makes it seem like a strategic plan to gain future subscribers.
> Obviously, I understand their employees have to eat. They should
> absolutely ban users abusing generosity. However, it feels a bit shitty
> given that their models would be relatively useless if they could not
> train on and then regurgitate, likely violating licenses, free software
> written by maintainers that they claim to be doing favors for.

I agree.

This feeling is real and it sucks.

If anything in the face of LLMs I want to double down on actively
mentoring more developers to FOSS development.

See my comments here:
https://fosstodon.org/@codonell/116743112568763059

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.