- cross-posted to:
- fuck_ai
- cross-posted to:
- fuck_ai
You must log in or # to comment.
Realistically, this is as much about not wanting to police constant AI drama as it is about AI coding utility. Like it or not that cat is out of the bag, but as long as you enforce the same development guidelines in terms of code quality, PR rules and such, the impact should be small. Arguably the bigger issue would come with taking a hardline approach where you inevitably spend a bunch of time arguing over AI accusations. We are already quickly approaching a point where it feels half the Internet is AI, and the other half is arguing about whether something is or isn’t AI. That’s just not going to work for FOSS development.
I’m arguing that it’s not a small difference since the cognitive burden is put on maintainers who are already overworked. Now they need to edit through AI PR manure to find decent requests. A lot of OSS projects have stopped taking public PRs for this reason. It shifts the cognitive burden from the programmer to make good code, onto the reviewer to read and understand AI slop contribution.
Yeah I think those workflows will adapt eventually, with more maintainers and some kind of more formal trust or reputation process to help sort things. It sucks but figuring out how to deal with it is really the only path forward. Otherwise all the cognitive load goes to arguing about AI.
I also think the worst offenders will get bored once the novelty wears off, and if the standards are kept high enough that getting a PR through still requires some amount of human work.
Programmers are hilariously dumb for how genuinely smart they are, the whole concept of AI “being the future” is a perfect example of it.
What about the third option? Stay, but don’t pay to use an “AI” service.
whos paying for the linux kernel?
It’s a perfectly reasonable position: fork the kernel with a purist no-ai approach and see where it’s going. It’s literally what open-source is about. No need for a screaming contest, just do the thing you are convinced of and compete for the best solution.
+1
Proof is in the puddin’.
If people think these specific guidelines will poison the kernel, well, let’s see if they do.
If it happens, go back to or fork it from an earlier point.
It honestly isn’t any different than previous kernel controversies.
“hi I’m Linus. I’m 23, and I like computers.”
Wtf is with using old pictures of tech guys.
Glorious leader does not age. His youth and virility are timeless.
Theres a forming deeply uninformed / misinformed loud group of people who desperately want to hate on AI being used for anything, even in scenarios where its actually perfectly good at its job.
Even when extremely seasoned professionals with waaaay more experience are stating “its a perfectly fine tool” these folks somehow cannot wrap their head around the possibility someone like fucking Linus Torvalds might know better than them.
Imagine having the utter balls to assert you know better than Torvalds about whether a technology is good or not 😐
Meanwhile those of us actually in the field have known for over a year now that the tools are pretty good now and very useful.
To be fair, many have had their workplace enshittified by AI, or managers with AI psychosis.
Or fired over it.
Maybe they have family that’s gone down the ChatGPT rabbit hole. I do.
…I think it’s understandable for people to be pissed, and take an absolutionist position, as the leads who see it as a tool seem to be few and far between.
Blaming AI for this, instead of the shitty people who made the decisions, is still very dumb.
I agree that aforementioned companies/managers/etc are shitty.
Thats not AIs fault lol, and isn’t a reflection of it.
Blaming AI as tge issue is just kneejerk mob mentality.
All true.
I’m just saying I can understand how people got in that mindset. Everything feels shitty, and it all seems like it’s because of “AI.”
And I think the hate should redirected to the actual perpetrators: the Tech Bros.
I can agree with that.
All major operating systems and software has been around before AI. Sure, AI might have some uses, even good ones but not enough to warrant all the negative effects it and all those datacenters running the models have.
Some people just don’t care about the negative effects and Torvalds is obviously one of them.
“the only conceivable reason anyone could object is that they’re ignorant” is cultish logic. Adding “my hero likes it so it can’t be bad” does not help.
Some of us have been “in the field” for decades and don’t like these tools for many reasons, including “the output is unacceptable bad” and “the tools are built in unethical and morally deficient ways”.
It’s not just Linus though. This is the exact position of many devs all over the world, ones who are still doing a good job and have clearly not fallen into AI psychosis.
I’m with OP here. There’s tons to hate about AI, for sure. But there’s also an extreme, people angry over things they have zero personal experience with.
including “the output is unacceptable bad”
Anyone with this view instantly goes in the “doesnt know wtf they are talking about, skill issue” bin.
“the tools are built in unethical and morally deficient ways”.
For coding, not really tbh. People are also deeply misinformed on this as well.
People are still operating on assumptions of how these tools work like its 2023 and not 2026.
The luddites haven’t been keeping up with the modern standards and probably couldnt even describe the nuance of when to choose a tool vs a skill for an optimization… let alone can speak as to what tools or skills to be using.
If you dont have opinions on how you’ve found stuff like caveman and headroom to work for you, I just straight up dont consider your opinion to be up to date enough to matter.
A big part of my job now is interacting with companies who have only just started to dip their toes into using these tools and so many developers are getting the sudden realization that keeping their head buried in the sand for the past 3 years has ruined their resume.
The difference between devs that at least tried to stay on top of things vs the luddites is palpable.
And on the total other end of the section you have fake devs cosplaying as real ones vis AI-everything but have 0 clue how to actually code.
Only the senior devs who both know how to code and how to use AI efficiently are aggressively outpacing everyone else.
Anyone with this view instantly goes in the “doesnt know wtf they are talking about, skill issue” bin.
Ah, I see painting everyone with one brush. Never mind the numerous studies stating otherwise. Oh the irony when you claim others are spreading misinformation.
“the tools are built in unethical and morally deficient ways”.
For coding, not really tbh. People are also deeply misinformed on this as well.
People are still operating on assumptions of how these tools work like its 2023 and not 2026.
So tell me, what has changed? Are we suddenly not gobbling Up the entire internet without permission to train AI models anymore? I must have missed something… (/s)
Honestly, personally, I tend to agree with Linus on his position, but holy fuck you have your hypocritical nose way up in the air.
Never mind the numerous studies stating otherwise
20 bucks says this person is basing their stance off that 1 study from a couple years ago where like a dozen developers with 0 experience with AI were tested using it and didnt show an increase in productivity.
Which is, in fact, precisely also what I was referring to when I said “People are still operating on assumptions of how these tools work like its 2023 and not 2026”
People use that study like its some big gotcha when in reality it just proves the simple fact that people need to be trained in how to use a tool in order for the tool to be useful.
So tell me, what has changed?
Dawg is indeed in the "doesnt know wtf they are talking about, skill issue” bin. Imagine unironically asking this question.
If you have to ask, you arent ready to participate in these convos and are just spreading a bunch of uninformed misinfo.
I dont want to talk to someone about this who hasnt put in the work to be informed.
Go get informed first, then come back in a few months and we can chat once you know the answer to that question.
numerous studies
that 1 study
Spot the difference. If you’re so knowledgeable you should be able to figure it out. Mind you, you should have been able to figure it out without my help, but I digress.
Imagine unironically asking this question.
Yeah, imagine how that person (oh wait, that’s me! Hint: you can address me directly) can unironically ask about how the process of training LLMs and the continued use of them potentially violates literally thousands of agreements. The problem is the answer hasn’t changed, as much as you would like to ignore it. If you don’t know that, you have absolutely no business accusing others of being misinformed.
If you dont know, you arent prepared to engage in this convo.
Im not interested in discussing this topic with someone who even has to ask, lol.
Try reading your own post out loud, get out the rubber duck if you need to, and see if you can understand why you sound like a deranged zealot rather than simply a passionate user.
I’ll help you get started: note that every argument you’ve made starts with a base assumption about your interlocutors pulled from nothing, and note that every assumption conveniently draws a stark dichotomy between you as the informed rational party and the other as a bumbling uninformed moron.
Also notice how you draw lines in the sand that let you completely dismiss any thought you don’t like.
People truly are just exceptionally out of touch.
These convos constantly have people pulling out the tired old remarks.
-
Quoting 1 shitty study from years ago that is both heavily outdated and doesn’t support their argument the way they think it does, and their renarks indicate they didnt actually read the study
-
“But its theft” which is more of an ethical Grey discussion that Ill leave it up to courts to decide, and so far courts have not ruled AI usage for coding as illegal. Which means I do not give a shit. The entire concept is such obtuse ethical showboating. Only people grasping at straws try and pull this one out.
-
“But what about water usage” bitch we are software devs, data centers using water has been an issue for centuries do not pretend this is magically a new issue. If you have been deploying basically anything in the cloud, especially AWS, then picking AI as special makes you look like an incredibly uninformed idiot. Did you seriously think deploying entire docker containers constantly with integration tested pipelines on every PR wasnt also using water…?
-
“Its output is bad” skill issue. Literally skill issue. As in, “go learn how to use skill files”. In 2026 if your llm is still producing bad output thats 100% user error. Get good.
-
“But what about AIs deleting prod databases” yeah thats an even bigger user error. Why the hell did the LLM have access to be able to do that? Learn to properly use MCP tools and hiw to properly control what commands and operations you grant an LLM access to. Its not even that hard but people are just so lazy.
Every single goddamn thread people crawl out of the woodwork and hammer on repeating these same things. Its all they have.
If you actually wanna have a serious discussion maybe bring up more interesting dilemmas like Clean Room problems…
-
The fact that some people don’t want to see AI being used to generate code does not make them dumb or misinformed. They may be informed, and simply reached a different conclusion than you.
Also, you have to consider that some of the most popular tools are controlled by a select few and that concentration can be used to control markets and users, reinforce biases, and shape what gets encouraged.
Finally, the use of AI can easily feed into a maximalist view of “produce more and faster” that has direct consequences like layoffs, increased cost of hardware, increased resource usage, increased environmental impact.
The majority of naysayers are touting deeply misinformed falsifities.
Its not a matter of guessing their intent, theyre quite outspoken on why they think its bad.
And the majority of them tout talking points that are years out of date at best.
Some valid points get brought up, but most of the points tend to be in the “these armchair devs have zero goddamn clue about how things actually are, they just are bandwagoning into an angry mob”
falsifities
Did AI also tell you this was a word?
I hate AI as in, I hate Microsoft, Google, OpenAI, etc. for pushing it everywhere, being an oligopoly, and using it for mass surveillance. But AI as a tool is fantastic for some tasks
The tool is fine to use when you know how to properly operate it and know it’s limitations. The problem is untrained monkeys trying to make “IT” think and work for them instead of using it as an aide.
Nobody really argues about that here though. The context of Linus statement is whether or not experienced kernel developers should be forbidden from using AI tools or not.
Forbidden? In an open project? Never, that’s part of the beauty. Fork it and fuck it up to your hearts content.
You may be surprised to learn that the maintainers of linux are not “untrained monkeys”
Every single generative tool is built on theft. No one has a training database that only contains code they were given legal permission to use for that purpose. Moreover, if these tools were trained on any GNU GPL code, then the tool and all of its output should also be GNU GPL:
if you distribute a derivative work or modification, you must provide the source code to those recipients under the same or equivalent license terms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License
None of the companies developing these tools are obeying the terms of the licenses. The trained models are the product of theft.
You cannot be a moral person and approve of the use of these tools, they are diametrically opposed.
Given that you’ve presumably looked at open source code in the past, and got more proficient (however marginally) as a result, does all your future code now belong to the GPL?
This comparison is invalid. Training a neural network algorithm is not equivalent to human learning. We are talking about data stored in machine learning models owned and controlled by multi-billion dollar corporations.
It has already been demonstrated multiple times that original training data can be reproduced completely from models, so yes, they are data storage systems. When they reproduce code which they have previously stored, even only in part, that is a derivative work. Adding extra steps to the transcribing process doesn’t make it any less a copy of the original.
Only when the data in question is so obscure to the point that the original source is the only place in which the data exists; which is neither common, nor useful to regurgitate, in practice.
It’s like if someone asked an artist to draw Trump, and then they did. It’s not that they studied what he looks like, but they’re familiar with that walking pusbag and there’s only the one, so it’s going to be a recognizable drawing.
Hard disagree.
This is like saying anyone who has watched a Disney movie now owes Disney a check any time they illustrate anything, even entirely unrelated, because they’ve learned from their commercial products in the past. If they don’t pay Disney, then their creations are based on theft.
Digital reproduction is digital reproduction no matter how many extra steps are added to the reproduction process. It’s just an algorithm that sorts through a collection of stored data to find specific pieces of data which best fit the keywords supplied by the user, then regurgitates the results that are the best match based on correlation.
In spite of common meaning overlap and popular metaphors, the human brain is not a computer. Ask any neurologist.
Fundamentally that’s a purely ethical decision about whether a machine doing something should be treated with the same understanding the same as a human would. But we don’t consider remembering something with a neurochemical storage the samd as taking a picture of something even if they’re basically the same.
That’s because taking a picture is an idetic copy. Machine learning is NOT copying, it’s learning - hence the name.
This is a misunderstanding based on confusion between technical and colloquial terminology.
A machine learning model “learns” information in the same way that a curve fitting algorithm “learns” the shape of a data set.
This is not the same as the colloquial meaning of human learning. It is a mathematical process.
That’s splitting hairs on definitions, with no change in meaning. It’s still not copying the data, and is far closer to a person learning than to a picture taken by a camera.
Social media is a much bigger and dangerous threat to mankind than AI will ever be.
+1
Especially in regards to the nonsense that transformers LLMs will somehow lead to AGI. That’s fiction, sold by con artists like Altman. That bubble is going to pop.
Meanwhile, algorithmic engagement optimization is basically the root of the world’s problems right now.
This is an extremely dangerous misconception.
I’m interested in reading your thoughts about it. Here are mine, in the best english I can muster.
I’m not saying AI is harmless. I’m saying social media has already demonstrated a more immediate and widespread ability to destabilize society. It has transformed how billions of people consume information, created echo chambers, rewarded outrage, accelerated misinformation, increase polarization, and eroded trust in shared facts. Again, AI may eventually become more dangerous, but social media has already created the enviroment in which those dangers can spread. If you think as AI as a weapon, then social media is the distribution system, and we as a society have already given that distribution system to billions of people.
Linus isn’t gonna let you hit little bro
Fuck AI
What a super useful addition to the convo.
Maybe think a little bit harder before hitting the reply button in the future, troll.
As opposed to your comment here?
Maybe ask ChatGPT to think harder next time.
Bravo! 💯
“Year of the BSD desktop.” ?
I have found no indication that FreeBSD won’t accept LLM-assisted contributions… On their wiki there is a small section about rules for a summer of code event, where they forbid it being used for coding, but just because that event is intended to be about learning… That doesn’t sound like a clear “no” to all LLM contributions.
Yup
Money has spoken. Tech giants are main source of funding for Linux project. Torvalds won’t bite the hand that feeds him.
Or, maybe, it’s just his genuine opinion? Not everything is a conspiracy or secret agenda.
How does linus get paid? Money motivates the worst parts of humanity.
Oh yeah, he gets paid a salary by a council made up of tech corporations at the linux foundation. He’s at the financial mercy of Microsoft, Alphabet (Google), Meta, and other tech corp execs and suits.
No conspiracy here, just dialectical materialism.
And yet he publicly speaks against and attacks these companies all the time. But just this once he’s in their pocket?
There is no conspiracy —everything Linus says is able to be scrutinized because of the financial ties and his voluntary choice of material conditions. His bosses are these people: https://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/leadership He chooses to work under them. No one is holding a gun to his head: only his salary and healthcare since he is in the US (he can fly to other places and get cheaper healthcare than you or I).
How many of them own AI stock and have financial incentive to not ban it from linux? Even if this is purely Linus’ opinion (it very well may be), if he instead had the opinion of banning ai completely from linux, you are saying no one above him would be incentivized to change his mind? Zero? Be realistic, don’t assume everyone only acts in good faith. Linus can be the only one acting in good faith here and still could be influenced via his direct financial ties. Not mutually exclusive things.
People are allowed to scrutinize Linus and his actions and his choices. Linus shouldn’t be trusted just because.
I’m not taking away your right to scrutinize it any way you want, I’m just offering a simpler explanation that you are free to disagree with. While I can disagree with his opinion, I don’t believe it’s anything but his actual opinion, as he has historically always held on to his technical opinions even when they burned bridges and were unpopular.
deleted by creator
