alt Hacker NewsI'm confused though. Wouldn't LLMs be better than humans at following specific instructions for the issue format? (esp. regarding distinguishing what was observed, what is merely hypothesized, etc.)
> I increasingly want issue reports to be condensed to what the human actually observed:
> 1. I ran this command.
> 2. I expected this to happen.
> 3. This happened instead.
> 4. Here is the exact error or log.
A lot of projects have something exactly like that in the issue template, a little interview for you to figure out what is going on. Maybe this project doesn't have that yet? (Or are the humans and LLMs ignoring it?)
Replies
It's sad that you voiced an actual question and you got downvoted.
To answer your question, remember that people will only approve a LLM's output if it matches with their perspective and priors. So if you see a slop issue, it reflects on the human user who didn't see an issue in it (thus their prompt framing or refining is wrong).
The project has templates and that's one of the giveaways to see that a issue bypassed it. Take for instance this issue from 5 hours ago as an example: https://github.com/earendil-works/pi/issues/4970
It does not follow the template, it's made by a user who is also active in the openclaw repo and it's full of slop analysis.