no comments (yet)

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
there doesn't seem to be anything here
31 comments in c/linux@lemmy.world view that post
[–] 54 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

A maintainer. Apparently went into a hissy fit because people pointed out to him that he broke the rules. That said, the critics probably weren't very nice to him either.

Ah, Linux drama.

BTW, the rules sound sensible to me:

"In this section, "AI" refers to generative artificial intelligence tools, including Large Language Models and similar technologies.

All contributions are expected to be made by humans. AI tools may be used for research and learning, but all content in contributions must originate from and be understood by the contributor. This includes code, documentation, issues, security reports, pull request descriptions, and comments in all Void Linux community spaces.

ALL usage of AI tools MUST be disclosed.

Do not bring AI review tools into pull requests.

Usage of AI-powered human-language translation tools is acceptable to facilitate contributions across language barriers."

Esp. this part: "contributions must (...) be understood by the contributor."

I'm in a smaller community that sees a lot of AI-supported app development recently and while the outcome can occasionally be good, I'm not sure it's worth taking those few good apples with the flood of vibe coded projects, and their "developers" that tend to get very defensive when simply asked about things.

Not saying this is the case here though.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -8 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    but all content in contributions must originate from and be understood by the contributor.

    why did you omit the important part of that quote

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 33 points 1 month ago* (2 children)

    Probably because it isn't actually the important part. And also because he did, in fact, quote it in full before repeating the part he found important.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    yeah... but in my opinion it is the important part... imo it is okay to use an llm to get a reference implementation and then you refactor it into aworking piece that you understand and comment afterwards

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    Okay, the "must be understood" is the important part when discussing what's good about the rule, and the "must originate from" is the important part when discussing what's problematic about the rule.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    I think the thing I hate most about AI is what it has done to all of our psyche. Look at this.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

    Yeah it really fucks with your psyche.

    That, at first glance, you cannot distinguish any digital work from being real work, or the result of telling an AI to do it. And the result isn't anybody's work. Except of those the AI stole from.

    But I have seen meltdowns like this long before any sort of LLM-based fakery.

    As I wrote before: "Linux drama"

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 1 month ago

    Cool. Let the slop users go join the fascist DHH in Omacom. Then again, I'm giving a much closer look at Haiku & BSD again since a slop generator was used in the Linux kernel.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago
    [–] 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child)

    I'm so tired of "Ai big number" headlines. 100+ packages - but how many good ones? (Genuinely, I don't know, as I don't the recognize those listed.)

    We need projects that diligently keep the slop out. We don't need every protect to do so, but it is critical that some do.

    We have Meta and Microsoft to provide quick-to-market low quality shit.

    The version of Linux that matters is the slow thoughtful good software.

    I'm not mad at slop slingers, aa long as they don't secretly inject slop risk where not welcome.

    Edit: Thanks for responses.

    For anyone who has read this far, I encourage seeing responses below for informative and nuanced thoughts on this.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago

    A lot of those packages are pretty core to deployments, the docker ones in particular are probably on every developer/homelabber using void (so everyone probably?)

    The docker runtimes handle a lot of the container sandboxing and security configuration, and are a huge source of container escape vulnerability.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    Here is the link to the PR: https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/pull/62482

    Please stop citing from a third-party news site!

  • source
  • [+] -18 points 1 month ago (18 children)
    1. AI is here to stay. It’ll never go away, unless there is no more electricity on the planet. So, we should all come to terms with it and use it the best way we can.
    2. we shouldn’t just use its code blindly. I’ve vibecoded a couple of personal projects, and I can confidently tell you that the code isn’t the best and, at times, it can be massively messy and even shit, but it works. I didn’t care because those were personal projects that have zero risk for me. We all need to be in a mindset of agreement on certain rules. Because fighting over it won’t do anyone any good. This is reality and will still be reality even if we fought over it
  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    AI is here to stay. It’ll never go away, unless there is no more electricity on the planet. So, we should all come to terms with it and use it the best way we can.

    Or choose not to, just because it's there doesn't make it mandatory or even a good idea.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -14 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    It’ll be all around you. It’ll be forced on you whether you liked it or not. Do you have a phone? An android? iOS? They’ve both been using AI religiously. Hell, even the Linux kernel now has AI code. I get that you don’t like it, but you won’t be able to not use something that was made with it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 18 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

    I didn’t say i didn’t like it, i said it wasn't mandatory to use it.

    Your comment (and the context of this post) implied active usage, which is what i was responding to.

    If you want to come at it from a "there is no ethical consumerism" point of view, you might be right that it is, or will be, everywhere.

    There is still a distinction between the choice to actively use it and the pseudo-passive background knowledge that it might have been used as part of something in your daily life..

    Like the knowledge that modern consumer electronics supply chains have a prominent core of slavery and exploitation doesn't make buying a phone the same as owning a slave.

    "It's already everywhere, so you might as well use it" isn't a good catch-all policy and i don't think it's a good approach to this specific scenario.

    But you do you.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago

    AI is here to stay. It’ll never go away, unless there is no more electricity on the planet. So, we should all come to terms with it and use it the best way we can.

    Sports will never go away but that doesn't mean I have to watch them the best way I can. We don't have to use AI even if it doesn't go away.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    I’ve vibecoded a couple of personal projects, and I can confidently tell you that the code isn’t the best and, at times, it can be massively messy and even shit, but it works

    as someone who doesn't code, this terrifies me. We're all kinda hoping that while we don't exactly know what a program is doing, at least there was a human who wrote it to do something. Once we let AI write complex code that you guys don't completely understand, how will we know what the hell is even going on??

    I realise this might make me sound super dumb but honestly, as someone who is interested but simply can't grasp the abstract nature of programming, this is how I feel when I read comments like these.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 1 month ago

    As someone who does code, this is a very valid concern you have. A lot of software is being built right now that not a single human actually understands. On some lever it could be possible to understand but that doesn't change the fact no one does actually understand it.

    To be clear, I'm not saying it's so advanced that we don't understand it. The problem is it's such a giant pile of shit that we don't understand it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago

    You're fighting back against things that have almost nothing to do with this topic, except the nowadays ever-present dividing triggerword.

    You should read the article and/or some top comments. tl;dr: he wasn't kicked out, he was criticized for breaking the rules and left in a hissy fit. It has comparatively little to do with AI, and in fact I have seen very similar thingshappening long before its advent into everyday life.

    Don't just automatically fight back. We need more nuance than that.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    AI is here to stay. It’ll never go away, unless there is no more electricity on the planet.

    ‘AI’ doesn’t exist, at least when that term is meant to reference Artificial Intelligence in relation to LLMs, as they are intrinsically incapable of possessing or providing comprehension.

    LLMs aren’t going away, but that doesn’t translate to an expectation that we should all have to be exposed to their explosively imprecise slop ingestion and excretions.

    So, we should all come to terms with it and use it the best way we can.

    This fascistic, rape culture rhetoric further diminishes arguments of its inevitability. If that’s your kink, go ahead and debase yourself, but just like religious dogma, it ceases to be acceptable or tolerable the moment it’s imposed on those who don’t, or can’t, provide explicit, informed consent.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    They're still within the field of AI study. Go to any major research conference.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    ‘AI’ is a marketing term, and has been since the term was conjured in 1956. Anyone who treats it as anything beyond that classification is a charlatan trying to punch down and grift others who know less than the little they do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    I suppose me and the rest of my colleagues at AAAI, IJCAI, FLAIRS, etc. don't know what we're talking about then

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Studying something doesn’t make the subject legitimate. There are plenty of academic fields rooted in imaginary conjurings, like theology, economics, and business.

    I trust you and your colleagues do, in fact, know what you’re talking about; my argument is if you’re claiming any function or output of a LLM should be in any way considered adjacent to intelligence, what you’re saying is gibberish.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    Well as long as you understand that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • Know at this point I'm just kind of laughing. Let me just one of the few places where you can see one dude say that generative AI is the only real sort of AI. The next due to forum over is going to tell you that generative AI is the only sort of AI, because that's what the unwashed masses have declared. Yet another dude will claim AI itself isn't real.

    At the same time all these internet bros waxing philosophical about AI seemingly have no idea what the field is actually about. But like it or not as an area of study, it's probably been one of the most consequential to computing and the rest of the world outside of areas like cybersecurity.

    The difference is it's always been operating in the background and you chuds didn't even know it was there.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

    Murder is here to stay; murder can solve many problems; murder is never going away, unless there are no more humans on the planet; we should all come to terms with it and use it the best way we can

    We shouldnt just use it to solve problems blindly. It can have terrible consequences if not used carefully

    We all need to be in a mindset of agreement on certain rules. Fighting over it wont do anyone any good; this is reality and will still be reality even if we fought over it

  • source
  • parent
  • 15 comments in c/linux@programming.dev view that post
    [–] 22 points 1 month ago (13 children)

    I'm not against LLM generated code in FOSS but it's nice to see a dev holding the line. There are a million distros to choose from, at least one needs to be 100% certified meat.

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (12 children)
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    This is arguably true but not tested in court yet. Free open source software licenses are all based on copyright, which can only be applied to the creative works of a human. Anthropic and OpenAI would love to see that wording changed, but as of now it looks like no LLM output can be copyrighted at all. Which is really hilarious for any company that hopes to replace their creative staff with AI. It does mean that GPL and any other software license (FOSS or not) can't be applied to slop code as it's outputted directly. Again, not settled law, but the letter of the law.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    But it's not all about the law. FOSS software also is a moral stance, of wanting code to be public and respected, and LLMs have been ignoring all that FOSS stands for.

    Using LLM generated code goes against the core concepts of FOSS, and that's what matters, not really whether or not it is formally in the law.

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

    FOSS 100% does NOT have a moral stance. once you asign morality to your software, its no longer FOSS. freedom as in beer means itt costs you no money, freedom as in speech means you can use it on a missle guidance system.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    The "free" is as in speech, which is a moral stance.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    ok, we are arguing english language. so yes but i was addressing the commenters implied morality on use. which is not allowed

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago

    I did not take that implication from their post. I don't think that we are arguing semantics. They are saying that licensing code as FOSS is a moral stance, and so is refusing to use llm code generation.

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

    We'll see what happens the next time Windows source code leaks if it contains AI slop code. It'd be heaven sent to ReactOS.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    Only the parts written by LLMs would be public domain. Everything else would still be copyrighted by Microsoft. See https://fsfe.org/news/2026/news-20260825-01.html

    And since there's no easy way for outsiders to determine which part is what, it would be a minefield for anyone trying to use the leaked source code. ReactOS devs would have to stay far, far away to avoid giving MS an easy way to sink the project

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (2 children)

    Aren't all llm generated code foss?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    With this logic, you can steal the code of someone, ask the LLM to copy it, and then it loses copyright.

    LLMs ignore any kind of licence when they absorb the code they train on, and as such cannot be part of a truly FOSS mentality.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago

    Oh sweet, I didn't know Void had a policy on this. Always good to see.

  • source