this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2026
369 points (89.8% liked)
Technology
88848 readers
4132 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
So you're saying the review process worked as designed?
Maybe it did, but apparently the code was not properly reviewed initially, so there could be other hidden problems.
Of course that's the same for human made code, but there's a problem in only judging code from how it performs, and not actually understanding the code. And that seems to be the situation with a lot of AI code.
And particularly disturbing when the human understanding failure is from the original and lead Linux developer.
100% that is the worst place to have the problem originate.
I have rarely disagreed with Linus Torvalds on things regarding the kernel, and maybe I'm wrong, but I strongly disagree with him on this issue. Contributing code nobody understands cannot be a good thing.
You people act like Linux adopted an all-AI pipeline.
The code still undergoes the exact same code review as before, because humans were the original slop coders.
The standards needed for code to be accepted haven't changed at all. Even the code Linus personally is reviewed..
That's not good enough, because it is well documented that AI often make mistakes and absolutely needs to undergo way stricter review.
It is also well documented that although you can achieve some results quickly, AI code also quickly becomes impossible to maintain.
If nobody understands the code, as it seems was the case here, and it is introduced anyway, the kernel is doomed to deteriorate.
My wife has already noticed deteriorating quality in Debian, with system hangs after they loosened the requirements for AI code. The quality of Debian now is lower than it has been in a decade!
Maybe you need to watch something like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ARF2KcDgc
Maybe because you are making stupid ignorant comments.
Or maybe his blog post falls apart completely by simply pointing out that AI isn't approving code, code doesn't go straight to main, and all code is manually code reviewed by human.
And his blog is pages of slop.
You really seem to believe that's a good point, but it isn't.
It is an extremely well documented fact that critical/independent thinking declines with use of AI, and you apparently have zero understanding of that fact.
Did you even read that 1 study you're repeating, or just click the link
If you read the study, they ran the tests over 13 mins only. And, they didn't keep retesting to see if results changed over time either. If that ran the test over an hour, both results may have ended up at similar levels (we don't know because it only tested over a short time)
You need to learn to stop exaggerating or actually read crap instead of just the headline lol
I know it's the same study we both (or presumably just myself) read, because it was the only one. I wouldn't call that "extremely well" anything
You seem to believe that's a great response. At this point, you're just arguing (which seems to be most of your Lemmy history).
If you want to argue that a journalist with a slop blog and no evidence of being a developer anywhere is credible, that's up to you.
All I see is obviously bad journalism from a guy who wants attention...
Is it an understanding failure, an unexpected interaction, or just an existing issue now exposed? A 23x performance increase could very well expose an existing race condition that systems weren't fast enough to run into.
People make mistakes. Software bugs existing at all is proof of this. This is certainly not the first time a change Torvalds approved has an issue, and it won't be the last.
There's a reason code is reviewed, and there's a reason people still go through after it is approved and verify. The process is working exactly as designed, the way it has for decades before AI coding.
Expecting absolute perfection is ridiculous, the anti-AI circlejerk acting like only AI fucks up just makes them look ridiculous. Any developer could have developed this fix, and there would be no article. Nothing in this issue is specific to AI usage and treating it like it is somehow special just undermines arguments against AI slop and vibe coding in general.
I'd say do better but that's not likely to happen.
So, let me get this right. You're disapproving on how things were handled based on your speculation of how it went?
Not based on speculation, based on numerous analysis of the problems with using AI code you don't understand.
Clearly Linus failed to understand the code, otherwise he wouldn't have suggested it for submission.
You seem to have a problem with criticism of Linus, is it a religious thing?
You understand it less it sounds like.
This isn't a unique or interesting story in any capacity.... It's boring and normal
For Christ sake, of course I know that.
Of course of course. How dare you blaspheme against our Lord and Saviour, filthy infidel!
But anyway, I'd like to be as enlightened as you. Could you name any of those numerous analyses that detail exactly what Torvalds did and what he failed to understand?
No I can't, because those are so general and commonly known, that if you somehow are unaware, you must have been living under a rock for the past year.
The second option is that you are just trolling or for some reason is in denial.
Either way I'm not wasting my time on any of those options.
Only while there are still reviewers who care to review the slop. Which is a rare breed and will quickly soon vanish.
I bet some projects will get more tolerance and love than others, based on value and utility. The kernel will get more, and Systemd will get less.
Yes, but it's bad because software has bugs.