I mean, communities work best when debates stay constructive.
Fuck AI
"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"
A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.
AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.
In a nutshell he says that Linux is a technology project, where technology comes first. If LLMs help to improve the technology then it's fair game. If not, then of course not.
He also says something about Linux not being a place for 'social warriors', which is kind of ironic, given that Linux is basically a big 'fuck you' against corporations and closed source, i.e., a scoial statement. Given how much beef he famously had with Nvidia, this is somewhat unexpected.
But I interpret it as coming from a place of seeing LLMs really just as a new tool and nothing more. In an interview a couple of years back, Linus also said pretty much that. He grew up with basic tools, had to create new software tools to make him more productive and improve the quality of his work. He saw LLMs just as another tool that can aid in development. I suppose this hasn't changed.
Given, that most people usually don't program in assembler anymore, but use high level programming languages like C++, which simplifies the process of coding enormously, or even scripting languages like Python, which present another level of abstraction and simplification, LLMs do appear somewhat like a next step in this evolution.
Issue is, you have deterministic and formal guarantees in programming languages, whereas LLMs do not. This is by far not the only issue of course, as others in this thread have also noted.
I wonder whether he uses LLMs in his daily work. Might change his perspective a bit.
The thing is that they rigorously review their code internally with In the project. It needs to be reviewed and cleaned up before it gets submitted. Someone who keeps posting junk is gonna get chewed out and ignored. So, the biggest issue with LLM code is kind of irrelevant. If someone useses it responsibly and finds a way to make it an effective tool, they’re not worried about it. Banning its use is kind of pointless since the worst outcomes are already banned.
The only difference between using C and an LLM is C doesn't consume thousands of gallons of water and gigawatts of electricity per second.
You forgot the part where the llm doesn't necessarily do what you tell it to do either
Linux is basically a big ‘fuck you’ against corporations and closed source, i.e., a scoial statement.
I mean, not according to the project leader, or the contributors, who are mostly companies.
If the 3 main groups contributing to a project are Intel, Meta and IBM, it's not really a community project, is it?
Look, as long as the baby-shredder produces passable code, I'm all in.
🤦
I honestly expected better from him...
That headline is a hell of a cherry pick of his full email, which itself is in a very specific context.
For one thing the emphasis is very much not on 'AI coding' uses, instead focusing issue triage and security testing IIRC.
Is it? After reading the article and the original post in the kernel mailing list, IMO the article depicts Linus' opinions accurately.
Was also astonished to find out that Linus considers people who advocate for sustainable tech are doing so solely out of fear and that AI can't be criticised because humans also make errors.
Saying "just fork it" is obviously disingenuous anyway. Linux is gigantic at this point and would be completely infeasible to maintain without a huge group of talented people and funding. He knows very well no one can just fork Linux in a meaningful way, just like you can't just easily fork Chromium if you disagree with Google's high level shitbaggery. Even MS threw in the towel on maintaining their own browser for the same reason.
I meam have you ever heard linus talk about other controversial topics? He is not one to give a fuck or mince words.
sees list of sponsors
If not corruption, why corruption-shaped?
Wow, they are at best cherry picking the article they cite on productivity with AI, if not outright trying to lie. They say
Last year, an METR study found that open source coders using AI tools were 19 percent less productive than those who didn’t use them, even as those AI-using coders said they felt 20 percent more productive. But in a February update on a follow-up study, those same researchers said that “we believe it is likely that developers are more sped up from AI tools now—in early 2026—compared to our estimates from early 2025,” citing early raw results and conversations with study participants.
But if you, y'know, actually read this February update, you would see that the researchers are lamenting the fact that they cannot draw conclusions effectively because of the proliferation of AI use. To wit, they say:
Altogether, these issues make it challenging to interpret our central estimate, and we believe it is likely a bad proxy for the real productivity impact of AI tools on these developers.
In fact here is the full passage Arstechnica cherry-picked from (emphasis mine):
Based on conversations with study participants, we believe it is likely that developers are more sped up from AI tools now — in early 2026 — compared to our estimates from early 2025. However, because of the selection effects in our experiment, our data is only very weak evidence for the size of this increase.
Based on conversations, which is to say, not on their data. This after the study a year prior which suggested developers are not reliable reporters of their own productivity.
Yeah, METR is an industry group funded by Google, Microsoft, Anthropic etc. I happened to summarize their work just yesterday actually: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/21358850 but one thing I think it's important to point out is that there is no second study, not yet. The blog, and the open source dataset, are all we have, because the researchers decided to adjust their method. So the intimation arstechnica gives that they completed a second study is false.
And the selection effects they are talking about are pro-ai software developers being unwilling or unable to complete complex tasks without their precious ai anymore, whereas a year ago they were more willing to do both ways in order to prove how powerful ai is. In my opinion, as I stated, this reflects poorly on their levels of self confidence from using ai, more than saying anything about a speed boost/decline.
Ahaha. The research showed that developers don't know how fast they are, but when we talked to them they said that they're pretty fast, so we'd rather report on that. I see no problems or contradictions with this.
Sad this article doesn't talk about why open source projects reject AI, specifically because of the legal implications of all the copyright violations baked into their training data
None of that will ever be prosecuted, because it was done through the wealthy and their favored praxis.
Anyone thinking about walking away might be interested in Haiku OS, which does not accept AI code
NetBSD is against tainted commits, including LLM-generated code.
Commenter is right. It remains to be seen whether or not it's actually possible to license code generated this way as anything other than like MIT.
A person didn't really make it, and so a person doesn't really own it.
All AI generated code should be GPL. It was trained on all of us, and its output belongs to all of us.
If the model was trained on GPL code then one could argue anything the model outputs is a derivative.
Man, that’s so disappointing.
Eeh, I don't think he is going to stop tearing people a new one for submitting bad code, though. He lives for the flame.