Linus really did work on himself huh. Imagine early 2000s Torvalds responding to this.
post
I can't believe Linus is saying AI is "great" man. I mean even I know it has a few usages for very disposable things, but saying it's great... That's sad. It's very well known the dozens of issues that lies behind LLM use.
I know you were just being glib, but I feel compelled to point out that given its context, it was only used as one might say "AI is all well and good, but...", like just using it to get to the real point, which is that in-and-of itself, without a person acting upon the AI's results, it is actually not great at all. Like any tool, it has to be used to help you accomplish something and not just set about to do your entire job for you. So he was actually saying the opposite.
AI is useful; it just doesn't replace people.
Sir, this is social media nuance has no place here.
A thing is either all bad and anybody who says anything about it is probably a nazi or it is good and nothing you say in support of it can ever be wrong no matter how irrational or toxic those beliefs.
AI is bad and so it can't be useful because only one thing can be true at once. No you can't change my mind, yes I did my own research.
Flamebait style: people are getting in the way of AI fixing the bugs.
Use LLMs to triage the flood of reports, and implement the fixes.
Learn to stop worrying and love the Skynet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Strangelove
An actual interesting experiment: fork the system and work toward fully automated maintenance on the fork. Sure, if you want to make it fail you can, but try to succeed and see how it competes with / compares to old-school real-life Linux.
This is an extremely naive view of what the word “fail” means and of what such a “competition” would look like. Are you suggesting we just deploy increasingly critical systems onto this hypothetical fork until it predictably fails in an unpredictable way? Sorta like Calvin’s dad would rate bridges?

@yogthos@lemmy.ml, Linus agrees with you that what you did with the Feds is totally okay. lol
Which is all entirely pointless churn, and we’re making it clear that AI detected bugs are pretty much by definition not secret, and treating them on some private list is a waste of time for everybody involved - and only makes that duplication worse because the reporters can’t even see each other’s reports.
Perhaps managing large – even huge – projects via mailing lists is not the best idea.
Am I understanding Lemmy's federation correctly when I think that this looks like a duplicate post? I'm still new-ish to Lemmy's functionality: https://programming.dev/post/50571805?scrollToComments=true
it's cross-posted, but not every lemmy client shows that explicitly
Yah, that's a dupe. That one is cm0002@lemy.lol and this one is beep@piefed.world but they're both to the linux@programming.dev community, which to my mind makes it a dupe, not a cross-post.
This sounds like literally an issue AI should excel at.
"Before submitting a bug report, analyse the past 3-4 weeks of the security list to see if the same issue was reported"
But the OP says, they can't see the duplicate reports of others. Probably an open zero-day safety measure. idk
“Due to the non-deterministic nature of AI, a similar bug was found but is a few characters off, so we’re classifying this as an all new bug”

top 21 comments