Note the distinction:

- using the LLM to find (possible) bugs and a human confirms it by testing, reviewing, etc.

- using the LLM to find and confirm the bug without the human confirming it

Neither of those are my understanding of what happened: a human found a bug, and then had an LLM verify their theory of the issue. To me, that's just extra due diligence and pretty weird to use as grounds to ignore.

	▲	nvlled a day ago \| parent [-]
		You are referring to this comment right? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49938732 > that I had every LLM check it to confirm it's a bug I'm primarily objecting the way he phrased it, as opposed to just saying "I've tested and confirmed and reproduced the bugs". Instead, it sounds uncertain and detached, like he asked the LLMs if it's indeed a bug without further verification.