I like the idea of not crediting the person who posted the bug but to the LLM that found it. People who find exploits using LLMs should never get a reward or credit.
Microsoft knows who he is because he alleges they deleted his Microsoft account and flagged his GitHub. And he says he was "publicly humiliated" in a CVE so I assume his name was on it.
> it more difficult to identify who to invite to join the priesthood.
How about this. Somebody forks the project and submits their patches to the fork . If the fork is successful (there are users actively using it), upstream can selectively go fish for the patches themselves. The maintainer of the fork eventually gets recognized.
Not ideal, I know, but building a reputation is meant to take time.
I have to admit LLMs are actually quite useful at generating code for me, but I am experienced enough to know what I want. I use it as a next-generation autocomplete.
I'm curious to see how many issues an LLM can find for OpenBSD. Not knocking OpenBSD at all, genuinely curious to see if all the careful development can stand up to LLMs.