358
Linus Torvalds let Claude Code fix the Linux page cache. Then reviewers found a race. (thenewstack.io)
submitted 3 weeks ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
165 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

They got to him

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 24 points 3 weeks ago (11 children)

And particularly disturbing when the human understanding failure is from the original and lead Linux developer.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (8 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 3 weeks ago* (6 children)

    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..

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

    The code still undergoes the exact same code review as before.

    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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [+] 0 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (5 children)
    [removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (4 children)

    Lol. That guy banned me from his community

    Maybe because you are making stupid ignorant comments.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (3 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

    AI isn’t approving code

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

    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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

    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...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •