@davidgerard @agowa338
But the bug exists, and if it's relatively serious you'd want to fix it.
So what you're suggesting, unless the bug stays unfixed, is telling the person to fuck off, but accepting the bug report, albeit by possibly closing the original and opening a new one that 'rediscovers' it without the LLM. Which I already described in my reply. But that is not actually banning 'LLM contributions' because the report started with the LLM, or at least the training data regurgitated through the LLM.
I mean I have done similar things with bug reports from people that were just rude and abusive, so I'm not saying this is even a bad thing to do, but it doesn't prevent LLM-derived information getting into the project as such. It's like laundering. Or decaffeination.
Now if it's a real bug you can verify it yourself by looking at the code involved. And if it's really real you could almost certainly say you'd have found it without the LLM if you'd gone looking but this is an earnest version of 'yes I understand and reviewed every line of code'.
And by doing this, you become the person that is relying on the LLM to submit the bug report. Unwillingly. And a step removed, but still fundamentally translating from possible slop into a real report. The fact it's a 1/500 hit when the rest is complete shit doesn't change this. You can't just unsee things, this is part of the problem with LLMs in the first place.