Technology

In his commit message:

[And this was a debug session from hell, enormously helped by an AI doing much of the grunt-work.

I'd like to call it my tireless helper, but the AI several times stated flat out that this was impossible and unsolvable and that we should just write a report about it.

I suspect those things have been trained by people who may not be quite as stubborn as I am.

But while the AI was ready to give up several times, it did keep adding debug code and analyzing it faithfully when I pushed. So credit where credit is due and I let the AI write the commit message above.

This is basically a one-liner fixing a bogus "round_up()" to a "round_down()", but there were 24 patches adding more and more debug information to this, and 18 kernel boot to finally narrow it down to this. - Linus ]

Didn't he state quite early on that LLMs were a good tool to spot bugs? Found this from 3 years ago: https://blog.mathieuacher.com/LinusTorvaldsLLM/

AI code bans may be impossible to enforce in the first place

I hate this attitude that if a rule or standard can't be enforced perfectly, we shouldn't strive for it. We can't (reasonably) run an OS free of proprietary software, does that mean the free software movement should just give up?

Oh, please... is it still a text generator, or is it already a religion?

I’m glad Linus is pragmatic about this, ethical questions aside LLM’s are a highly valuable tool in software development and they are likely to continue to improve. Any engineer fighting the use of LLM’s will ultimately find that their peers are achieving more in a shorter time then they are. Open weight LLM’s have also come a long way and are already good enough for daily use.

NetBSD banned submitting "Tainted Code" in their commit guidelines...

https://www.netbsd.org/developers/commit-guidelines.html

May be time to dump Linux, Linus.

Nothing wrong with using llms in useful ways, as long as they keep giving factual and unbiased information. Or you can look up stuff online and verify in a book at the library, although that could be outdated too, hmm. Unfortunately I noticed they do more of the "both sides have good points" (Perry's scheme level 3 of 9), even when it's a lopsided topic. We need impartial ratings somehow to show how biased the various models become and people will stay in the ones they like, or not use them or other ways to learn.

Locked into the low-level, high-control systems, they won't learn how unhealthy they are and how to do better with freedom and equality, like it's always been, just updated with the tech. Ask llms to use Sagan's baloney detection kit and Perry's highest thinking levels to analyze problems, with the main goal of how to help humanity, the environment, etc. that benefits the majority and minimizes damage. Try to make the llm work in favor of humanity rather than the owners' greed.

Develop ego awareness, notice when it reacts with upset to new information, and choose to learn anyway. As you recognize the unhealthy indoctrination you absorbed, use that anger to break free from high-control systems, guided by the truth that sets you free. Then learn to manage the cognitive dissonance and the inner resistance that clings to the old beliefs once you've woken up to the truth. Good luck!

Seems like an AI apologists article. Sounds a bit like "bans are hard so why even bother."

No, the alternatives exist and people can choose them where able: https://codeberg.org/brib/slopfree-software-index Sure, not all things are available AI free, e.g. there's no Linux kernel (NetBSD doesn't run on as much hardware), but that doesn't mean there's no point in choosing no AI software where possible, if you care about it.

The enforceability part seems the most apologist to me. You never could really know if some contributor wasn't copying leaked Windows XP code into your FOSS project. If you trust contributors that little, don't let them contribute.

This will also be quite the test for the Lemmy slopwarriors

If the model is adequately FOSS, i.e. open weights, and can run on a single consumer GPU (or NPU), and the "author" (quotations because I'm personally undecided if one can claim code generated by an aforementioned model is theirs) understands it, then I really don't see what the problem is...

Personally I have nothing against SLMs/LLMs as a technology, to me my grievances against ChatGPT or Claude are mostly about their environmental impacts and selling us back our own art, also keeping knowledge behind a for-profit black-box - if those aren't appropriate for a specific model, then I say using that model is fair, and good for productivity.

Antoine’s argument is still very naive and short sighted.

Only because some corporations are linked to fascism, does not make the technology inherently fascist.

If these links are an issue, we should also all stop using Microsoft and Google, because they offer Isreael computing power, and thus every service is now supporting genocide. So if you are that user, all fine, enjoy an off-grid life. But don’t pretend to be better, if you still rely on those companies in the first place.