It will be read for decades, whereas no one in 10 years time is going to be reading today's tickets.
I strongly disagree with this. Tickets are the main artifact for me to interact with GHC. That includes 15 years old tickets that are still unsolved today (there are plenty). GHC tickets are referenced in the GHC codebase itself, in cabal and all sorts of other places. I think you're looking at it from a "I'm a core GHC developer" perspective only. And for those your assessment might be true. But there's a large audience for whom tickets is the main source to understand what has been done and is still missing.
It would be absurd to expect Mikolaj to write every word. He doesn't know enough about GHC's internals. If I insisted on that, he just wouldn't submit them, and that would be a shame
This is what we call the meat proxy phenomenon: https://meatproxy.me/ The bug report is still valuable, but the "I asked an LLM..." is not, unless: * the prompting was so complicated or time intensive that it's hard to reproduce (well, you can share web prompts) * the token spent was very high * there was significant review/judgement involved (doesn't seem so) No one is complaining about people using AI to find reproducers. But even here that's something a developer may as well just do themselves if all it took was "here's a GHC ticket, try to find a minimal reproducer".