> If you won't read TFA, source being the RedHat employee paid to triage Gnome vulnerability reports since 2020:

I read the article very carefully, including the bit that you quoted. Here's what I read:

> Red Hat’s scan of GLib found 118 vulnerabilities. Or at least, it claimed to. However, due to the way we ran the scans, several of these are actually unnecessary duplicates of each other, which we have not fully deduplicated yet, so the number I report is not entirely trustworthy. Moreover, 46 of these “vulnerabilities” are bugs in gobject-introspection, mostly in the typelib support, which is evidently not very robust. A typelib controls how your program calls libraries; it is effectively calling convention, so it must inherently be fully trusted: a malicious typelib would be able to induce vulnerabilities even without any bugs! I would expect an AI ought to have been able to figure that out, but apparently not. These bugs are still real problems that we ought to fix, but all maintainers agree they are not security vulnerabilities, so let’s count all of them as false positives. That alone creates a 40% false positive rate. Ouch.

And that's with them running the scanner, not with submitted reports by 3rd-parties! When you welcome AI reports, everybody is going to submit the same report, just differently ordered and differently worded.

I mean, he even said:

> I requested that the bug bounty program end because I was overwhelmed with incoming AI-generated issue reports. The final issue was reported on February 23, 2026. Here are the results:

Sure, he attributes it to a financial incentive, but it's clear that submitted AI reports will overwhelm, and the only way they got to a measly 40% real-bugs was by do the scanning themselves.

(Also, I wish all these sibling posters implying that I did not very carefully and thoroughly read the article would, themselves, read the article!)

The era of software quality, or the era of ostriches?