2026-05-24原文

Quoting Armin Ronacher on AI-Generated Issue Reports

Armin Ronacher criticizes users who submit issue reports rewritten by AI, leading to inaccurate conclusions and wasted maintainer time. He advocates for concise human observations.

Article intelligence

EngineersAdvanced

Key points

Users submit issues that are rewritten by AI, losing the original voice and accuracy.
AI-generated conclusions are often confident yet incorrect, with fake minimal reproductions.
Ronacher wants issues to condense what the human actually observed: commands, expectations, actual results, and exact errors.

Why it matters

This matters because users submit issues that are rewritten by AI, losing the original voice and accuracy.

Technical impact

May affect model selection, inference cost, product capability, and evaluation benchmarks.

A quote from Armin Ronacher

Simon Willison’s Weblog

24th May 2026

The most frustrating failure mode right now is that people submit issues that are not in their own voice. They contain an observed problem somewhere, but it has been thrown into a clanker and the clanker reworded it and made a huge mess of it. Typically, it was prompted so badly that the conclusions produced are more often than not inaccurate but always full of confidence. The result is complete guesswork on root causes, fake-minimal repros, suggested implementation strategies, analogies to adjacent but often the wrong code, and long lists of error classes that might or might not matter. [...]

So at least personally, I increasingly want issue reports to be condensed to what the human actually observed:

I ran this command.

I expected this to happen.

This happened instead.

Here is the exact error or log.

— Armin Ronacher, on slop issues filed against Pi