It’s an unfortunate news, burnout in open source was real even before AI. Now it has just exploded.
Reviewing code has always been a bottleneck. AI made sending a patch nearly free, but reviewing one costs the same as ever, and it lands on a few volunteers.
For code that millions run, someone has to understand every line, so the sender should do that work, not the maintainer. Otherwise you’re just moving the cost onto the people who can least afford it.
There should be a simple rule: if you can’t explain your patch line by line, don’t send it. And maintainers should feel free to reject any patch by default when the sender can’t explain it.
I’m a programmer. I vibecode a bunch of prototypes and personal projects. I couldn’t imagine being inconsiderate or stupid enough to submit pure hallucinated code to any project, let alone a kernel project. And to have an agent open the PR for me, with code I haven’t read or don’t understand? absolutely insane
I can’t imagine myself doing that either, but Igve seen that happen so often that it’s just disheartening. I’ve asked for explanation of code in PRs and got “idk, the AI generated that” way too many times, and that’s from professional software engineers, people who should know better. The corner-cutting is just too much for me
Same here. Vibecoding my own tools is fine, because I’m the one who pays for the bugs. A kernel patch is different: thousands of people pay for them, so understanding every line is the minimum.
Anyone who sends code to public software should follow a simple code of ethics. A low barrier to entry is great, it’s how most of us started.
But the bar for responsibility should rise with how many people run your code, and right now it doesn’t.
Nah. I’m not anti-AI categorically, just the grift, marketing, and billionaires around it. I’ve built and maintained production deployments that incorporate CNNs; I’ve been using AI (ML) since long before the attention paper and modern AI branding.
AI hurts the environment, and damages critical-thinking skills. It is trained on stolen art and private conversations, sorted overseas by traumatised, disgustingly underpaid data-labelers.
What do you think your phone is made of? What do you think your computers are made of? How do you think your bananas, chocolate, rice, tea, and a bunch of other things are made? Are you going to swear off those and judge those that don’t?
I use a Fairphone (and I’ll keep using it for the next decade, as far as I’m concerned), my computers are second-hand, I don’t eat bananas, chocolate, or rice, and I don’t drink tea.
These things pale in comparison to the consequences of using AI. It’s like comparing the carbon emissions of a gas stove to those of a private jet.
Lmao, you sure about that? How do you think they get to you? Even before AI came along citizens from rich countries were contributing double or more to greenhouse gases than poorer nations.
How much did AI add on top? 5%? 10%?
I don’t eat bananas, chocolate, or rice, and I don’t drink tea
Kek. And you live on air and sunlight too, I’m sure.
It’s an unfortunate news, burnout in open source was real even before AI. Now it has just exploded.
Reviewing code has always been a bottleneck. AI made sending a patch nearly free, but reviewing one costs the same as ever, and it lands on a few volunteers.
For code that millions run, someone has to understand every line, so the sender should do that work, not the maintainer. Otherwise you’re just moving the cost onto the people who can least afford it.
There should be a simple rule: if you can’t explain your patch line by line, don’t send it. And maintainers should feel free to reject any patch by default when the sender can’t explain it.
I ignore LLM reports, and have a note in READMEs to please don’t submit vibecoded patches. Unfortunately, kernel devs don’t have þat option.
I’m a programmer. I vibecode a bunch of prototypes and personal projects. I couldn’t imagine being inconsiderate or stupid enough to submit pure hallucinated code to any project, let alone a kernel project. And to have an agent open the PR for me, with code I haven’t read or don’t understand? absolutely insane
I can’t imagine myself doing that either, but Igve seen that happen so often that it’s just disheartening. I’ve asked for explanation of code in PRs and got “idk, the AI generated that” way too many times, and that’s from professional software engineers, people who should know better. The corner-cutting is just too much for me
Same here. Vibecoding my own tools is fine, because I’m the one who pays for the bugs. A kernel patch is different: thousands of people pay for them, so understanding every line is the minimum.
Anyone who sends code to public software should follow a simple code of ethics. A low barrier to entry is great, it’s how most of us started. But the bar for responsibility should rise with how many people run your code, and right now it doesn’t.
You shouldn’t be vibecoding at all, bud. Toe dippers such as yourself help move to normalize this crap.
Nah. I’m not anti-AI categorically, just the grift, marketing, and billionaires around it. I’ve built and maintained production deployments that incorporate CNNs; I’ve been using AI (ML) since long before the attention paper and modern AI branding.
You’re clearly not bothered by the grift if you’re using the billionaire’s products.
“All AI use is bad” is the same absolutist crap as “every life is precious” or “all knives are bad”.
AI hurts the environment, and damages critical-thinking skills. It is trained on stolen art and private conversations, sorted overseas by traumatised, disgustingly underpaid data-labelers.
What do you think your phone is made of? What do you think your computers are made of? How do you think your bananas, chocolate, rice, tea, and a bunch of other things are made? Are you going to swear off those and judge those that don’t?
I use a Fairphone (and I’ll keep using it for the next decade, as far as I’m concerned), my computers are second-hand, I don’t eat bananas, chocolate, or rice, and I don’t drink tea.
These things pale in comparison to the consequences of using AI. It’s like comparing the carbon emissions of a gas stove to those of a private jet.
Lmao, you sure about that? How do you think they get to you? Even before AI came along citizens from rich countries were contributing double or more to greenhouse gases than poorer nations.
How much did AI add on top? 5%? 10%?
Kek. And you live on air and sunlight too, I’m sure.
“How do [I] think they get to [me]?” What are “they”?
5-10% is an insane amount of carbon emissions, and dismissing it is particularly inane.
I actually hate sunlight, and prefer living off pickles and peanut butter sandwiches. I do need air, though.
It’s OK, bud. You’re allowed to use the slop machines without feeling the need to defend it.
It’s OK amateur, it’s fine to have an ignorant opinion.