you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 38 points 3 weeks ago (9 children)

This might get me banned here but I mostly agree with him

AI is a tool and the problem world wide is that nearly everyone is using the tool wrong

But used right, it can be a huge benefit. We know how deeply checked and tested all code is (who doesn't remember the continuous Linus rants?) so why does it matter if submitted code covers a bug that was discovered through AI, or even written by AI? As long as the code checkers know and understand what happens, I dont see the problem with the code having been written by a tool

Obligatory AI doesn't exist, its LLM's, and LLM's are tools, and tools are fine as long as you use them well.

If companies suddenly started making two meter long chainsaws and people started running around with these chainsaws cutting little girls in half, then yeah, people would rightly question if we shouldn't ban those tools too.

Force AI companies to be responsible for how their products are used and wait to see how fast things would get better.

And for developers: as long as every commit is reviewed and checked by humans, to me its just another tool being used to make Linux better

For those arguing the water of energy and the theft of intellectual property, it's the same point: governments need to put rules in place to control the stupid growth of data centers, AI companies must be held yo account for the data they've stolen, absolutely. However, that doesn't mean that LLM's are tools without any use

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

    He's right about the tool aspect of it, but, and I cannot emphasise this enough, it is not just a tool. Though we all bow (or salivate) before our fake materialist gods, and cast aside the beauty and relationships in the world, things are more than just their function.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

    This might get me banned here but I mostly agree with him

    I have seen a turn in the tide in the past few months. Whereas online forums discussing LLM tools for coding used to be near 100% brigade against them with mostly bluff and bluster and no real basis for the arguments, attitudes have been softening. I actually read one rather long thread with 90%+ support for the tools - not blind enthusiasm with no evidence, but clear statements from users about what is working well for them and what still needs improvement. All in all, work with the new tools seems to be going better "in the trenches" than work without used to.

    In the end, it doesn't matter if you wrote the code, an LLM wrote the code, your cat tapped it out, or aliens communicated it by blinking their home sun... you check it, it works to your satisfaction, you submit it for review and merge for use by others. In all those scenarios, it's "your code" - the LLM, your cat, aliens, none of them are going to stand up and defend the quality of the product. If you don't really understand why what your cat wrote works, you probably shouldn't sumbit it. Especially the alien code should be carefully examined before running, but at the end analysis it's the code that matters, not its provenance.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    I don't think the arguments against it had no basis. It's clear that those tools have become really useful, but a huge chunk of those arguments are ethical about the environmental and economic impact.

    What I'm seeing is that those arguments are beign faded out, along with those that talked about it as if LLMs didn't work as expected.

    They are clearly useful now, and it can't be said that they aren't anymore, but those example that Linus gave minify the other problems and it makes it seems that anyone that does not abide by AI is a fool and an elitist, which I don't think that's the case.

    I think that this position makes how you wrote your matter for some people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -6 points 3 weeks ago

    a huge chunk of those arguments are ethical about the environmental and economic impact.

    I have never seen an economic or environmental argument that puts objective numbers in context, how much more energy, water, etc. is AI using or projected to use? It's all handwaving as if every single ChatGPT query is burning down a Macaw's home tree in the rain forest and polluting a small town's water supply, single handedly raising the average ocean temperature 5C.

    makes it seems that anyone that does not abide by AI is a fool and an elitist

    Back in the late 80s, there was a large contingent of the workforce who felt they were "too old to learn the computer." Linus, and I, were getting our starts around then and we were the young upstarts using this "solitare playing machine" to do "a few little tricks, not sure if there's actual value to justify the cost." Through the 90s there was a good 20% or more of the workforce that probably would have been more effective in their jobs if they would have "skilled up" on "that computer stuff," but they didn't and we all got through.

    Adopting AI is going to be easier than learning how to use Win95 when you're coming from dictation, letter openers and interoffice memos delivered on paper, but I won't be surprised or disappointed if a significant chunk of the workforce stays away from AI for a whole variety of reasons, and that's fine. I also highly encourage those using AI to ensure that it's actually improving their product, not just making something passable faster.

    makes how you wrote your matter for some people.

    Pedigree and provenance, whose child wrote this paper, who they studied under, where they grew up, all of that matters, a lot, to a lot of people, in a lot of fields. In computer code, particularly in computer code like the Linux kernel, it shouldn't.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    Generated code was trully bad. These days? Not so much anymore...

    Better tools, more acceptance.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago

    2024 I'd use "the tools" to generate snippets that I would copy-paste and massage into my larger projects. Those snippets tended to be 2 to 6 lines long, and they'd be usefully correct about 80% of the time. I laughed at people who were "vibe coding" with those tools, even in early 2025. Like Linux in 1994, I'd call it "interesting, not ready for prime-time."

    By mid 2025, I saw the potential for improvement - but the better the code output got, the louder and more irrational the online reactions against it got - up until the past month or so it was like a guaranteed brigade of negativity.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    It's so funny when they try to argue that the conditions around it are somehow different and make it unethical. Like yeah, I'm against fascism and climate change, but all our previous tooling was also built on unethical grounds, this isn't any different. You like trains? The railroads were built by slave labor, extracting the fuel displaces indigenous people and hurts the environment, and folks like Carnegie used their train-powered wealth for their own personal benefit to the detriment of the public. Does that mean taking a train is unethical?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment