237
Linus Torvalds used AI to fix a Linux bug, and now LLM critics on Linux face an uncomfortable choice
(www.xda-developers.com)
this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2026
237 points (90.7% liked)
Technology
87742 readers
3480 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Over the past 5 years specifically, nearly every single piece of software I use from OS, to apps, to even legacy programs I trusted for decades have started to produce more bugs, are less stable, and less reliable.
At the same time, AI has been forced on people and AI using devs are proliferating while we still lack an understanding of AIs cognitive affects on us.
What exactly am I supposed to think? That all the programmers pushing AI on me like Crypto Bros while their programs work worse are smart, well intentioned people?
You can say whatever you want, I use the software, shits gotten absolutely terrible lately, and it's not just the purposefully enshitified software either.
Sorry, if you just think back to the 1990s, you're describing the Microsoft shitshow, pushing "updates" that make things worse not better, pushing standard products that aren't as good as the products that were avaialble years earlier. Lately I've been getting the same vibe out of Canonical / Ubuntu.
"AI makes it easier to be lazy and produce buggy software faster" is your claim, which I agree with. But I have to note that "thus AI can't be used to produce high quality software" is not something that follows from that.
It's been 5 years since mass public forced adoption and things have just gotten progressively worse.
The tool was not put out responsibly, and most importantly, the CEOs and companies leading the charge currently cannot be trusted.
AI has been a massive bust, has helped accelerate climate change, destroyed lives, raises power bills, and for what?
I'm not saying don't R&D it and don't use it, but forcing it down people's throats and technofascist CEOs being in charge of this dumpster fire is killing us.
Your claim seems to be “forcing it down people's throats and technofascist CEOs being in charge of this dumpster fire is killing us”. That doesn’t seem to generalize to the actually-voluntary usage we’re talking about.
Nobody forced me to adopt AI, and up until about a year ago I mostly ignored it. It "wasn't ready for prime time" back then. Starting about a year ago, I saw the improvement curve and the potential and decided it was time for me to learn how to make the best of it. Starting about 8 months ago it really turned a corner in terms of productivity and usefulness, and that same increase in productivity is driving improvement in the AI tools themselves. I expect it to plateau, any day now, but so far it doesn't seem like it has started - each new "frontier model" seems noticeably more capable / useful than the one before. Sometimes that's more a matter of specialization than general overall capabilities, but that's O.K. too - we don't need one model to serve all purposes, that's the whole M.o.E. premise...