Basically the same sentiment "machine output is raw data, log, sloppy outline" from mathematicians talking about LLM-generated proofs and how to embrace the slop there: https://youtu.be/LKrwhjOI8Nc?si=-qI0GbJo0rTSSWTW&t=1391 On Mon, Oct 19, 2026 at 1:43 PM Mikolaj Konarski <mikolaj@well-typed.com> wrote:
I find in myself that a lot of my aggression at LLMs is triggered via uncanny valley on an unconscious level and the similar "if you are so smart, why are you so dumb, making mistakes or permitting me to make them --- it must be to spite me" on the conscious level. So instead of trying to make LLMs behave (e.g., write) like a human co-worker would, I now instead embraced the slop.
I let LLMs dump all the slop they want into commit messages and dedicated slop-files and state-files. This sometimes helps them not to be as dumb or protect me from being so dumb and it helps me remember they are not human. I find the GHC issue tracker organically evolved practice of wrapping particularly sloppy LLM texts in <details> very wise, similar to what you'd do to long logs appended to a message. I hope gitlab gets a <slop> tag soon.
Would I file an issue ticket with just one sentence and a long <details> log? Probably not. Maybe if the log is totally self-evident? Maybe with five sentences? Are GHC devs justified to demand more than the log? Obviously so.
Thank you for you patience, Mikolaj