▲ 358 ▼ Linus Torvalds let Claude Code fix the Linux page cache. Then reviewers found a race. (thenewstack.io) submitted 3 weeks ago by mannycalavera@feddit.uk to c/technology@lemmy.world 165 comments fedilink hide all child comments They got to him
[+] auzy1@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (5 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 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 replies: [–] auzy1@lemmy.world -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 replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 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 replies: [–] auzy1@lemmy.world -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 [–] auzy1@lemmy.world -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
[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 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 replies: [–] auzy1@lemmy.world -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 replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 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 replies: [–] auzy1@lemmy.world -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 [–] auzy1@lemmy.world -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
[–] auzy1@lemmy.world -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 replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 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 replies: [–] auzy1@lemmy.world -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 [–] auzy1@lemmy.world -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
[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 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 replies: [–] auzy1@lemmy.world -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 [–] auzy1@lemmy.world -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
[–] auzy1@lemmy.world -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
[–] auzy1@lemmy.world -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