> But I just checked and, unsurprisingly, 4o seems to do reasonably well at generating Semgrep rules? Like: I have no idea if this rule is actually any good. Bu

> But I just checked and, unsurprisingly, 4o seems to do reasonably well at generating Semgrep rules? Like: I have no idea if this rule is actually any good. But it looks like a Semgrep rule? I don't know about semgrep syntax, but the chat it generated is bad in at least a couple other ways. E.g. their "how to fix" instruction is wrong: if let Some(Load::Local(load)) = self.load.read().get(...) { // do a bunch of stuff with `load` } else { drop(self.load.read()); // Explicitly drop before taking write lock let mut w = self.load.write(); self.init_for(&w); } That actually acquires and then drops a second read lock. It doesn't solve the problem that the first read lock is still active and thus the write lock will deadlock. Speaking of which, acquiring two read locks from the same thread can also deadlock, as shown in the "Potential deadlock example" at <https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/sync/struct.RwLock.html https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/sync/struct.RwLock.html>. It can happen in the code above (one line before the other deadlock). It can also slip through their rule because they're incorrectly looking for just a write lock in the else block. I've been playing with AI code generation tools like everyone else, and they are okay as autocomplete, but I don't see them as trustworthy. For a while I thought I just wasn't prompting well enough, but when other people show me their AI output, I can see it's wrong, so maybe I'm just looking more closely?