Grappling with Rejecting Good Patches in an Anti AI Project
Something kind of funny happened today. In the Uxn mailing list, someone wrote a Lean implementation, and through its formal verification found a little behavior difference between two emulators, and shared a 5 lines patch of Uxntal code, which I saw with my own eyes, an extremely simple patch, so simple it would be hard to deviate from this tiny bit of code to fix the issue. Especially since I have SEEN it. While the author's repository didn't have Claude signed commits, there were signs that it might have been reached with the help of LLMs. Since this is a core utility, I didn't want to merge it straight, but letting this open is also kind of silly(the sort of stuff that keeps me up at night), although in the future, it's what I'd do: wait until someone stumbles across the bug naturally. Anyhow, with @d6's help, we did a little experiment. At that moment, Erik had not yet seen the possibly tainted issue nor patch, so maybe there's a way out of this. I knew where the issue was, but I am tainted at this point, so I can't fix it myself. So, I explained very broadly what the issue was, and Erik whom I trust to be a person, wrote a patch for it. It's a strange position here, because I moderate the mailing list, so I need to read the posts, but my reading of the posts also reveal to me, possibly, issues that might not be found without LLMs, but seeing it makes me a aware of issues that suddenly I don't want to fix because I didn't genuinely found the issue. Ha! I don't even
Hacker News (AI / LLM) files mainly under ai. We currently carry 6,438 of its stories.
Story provenance
Source · retrieval · rights · ranking — open for full record
inspect →
Story provenance
Attribution is not the same as permission. This drawer separates discovery metadata, excerpts, WeSearch-generated summaries, reuse status, and whether the publisher receives the visit. Nothing here claims a legal grant the publisher has not made.
Record
| Original publisher | Merveilles |
| Canonical URL | https://merveilles.town/@neauoire/117328016068427934 |
| Publication time | Fri, 25 Sep 2026 14:42:11 +0000 |
| Retrieval time | 2026-09-25T14:45:32.088Z |
| Last seen | 2026-09-25T14:45:32.088Z |
| Headline source | Publisher (no WeSearch rewrite) |
| Excerpt source | publisher description |
| Excerpt method | Publisher-supplied description / RSS summary field. |
| Summary | None yet |
| Summary source text | description |
| Citation coverage | No WeSearch summary has been generated for this story yet. |
| Cluster | dO5Epy9i_SxK · 1 stories |
| Cluster logic | Grouped by semantic title/content similarity across sources within a rolling window. Same-publisher template collisions are excluded from coverage comparison. |
| Ranking reason | Story pages are not engagement-ranked. Hub feeds use recency, with optional source-diversified chronological ordering (cap consecutive stories per source). No personalized ranking. |
| Publisher visit | Yes — open original |
| Substitutes article? | No — link-out required for full text |
Rights status (four layers)
WeSearch handling by dimension
| Indexing | May the item be indexed (stored, ranked, made findable)? | Allowed |
| Snippet | May a short excerpt of the publisher's text be shown? | Allowed |
| AI summary | May WeSearch generate its own short summary of the article? | Limited |
| Retrieval / RAG | May the content be exposed for third-party retrieval-augmented generation? | Not asserted |
| Model training | May the content be used to train AI models? | Not asserted |
| Commercial reuse | May the content be reused commercially? | Not permitted |
Basis: Derived from the published RSS/Atom feed. Contact: [email protected]. Reviewed: 2026-07-24.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from Merveilles
