Huh, TIL. Off the rabbit hole of compiler (non)determinism I go

What even is appropriate use of AI?

Industrial scale misinformation and scamming.

Also, sometimes the responsibility falls onto the tool maker. Remember Crowdstrike? That software update that caused widespread outages in Windows computers used by many organizations, including in airports? It wasn't any user's fault, surprisingly it wasn't even Microslop's fault, it was Crowdstrike's fault alone.

Harder for the people who don't want backdoors or critical security bugs approved, you mean

I know, but even regarding bug catching, there have been a LOT of bogus bug reports "discovered by AI" that could not be replicated in any way, shape or form. Granted, I've seen one or two articles saying that AI helped find real software bugs, but what's the ratio there, 1:500 for useful/useless AI bug reports?

then people can turn to the devs and Linus and say “I told you so.”

I bet his response will be an email with a dozen variations of "fuck you for insinuating that I have any responsibility, I didn't approve that specific commit, it's all 's fault who is a fucking imbecile"

People using AI push a lot more code in a shorter amount of time. That deluge makes it much more likely for bad code, intentional or not, to slip by.

"Just leave it to a few trusted devs"

Some bad actors can play the long game. The XZ Utils backdoor is a very recent example of a contributor trying to abuse a backdoor he put there himself, after 2 years of posing as a helpful person.

"Let AI review it"

If humans are prone to mistakes, why would anyone leave a probabilistic program that is known to make bad decisions at random and that has, on more than one occasion, "cheated" to pass quality tests, deleted files it shouldn't and is still suceptible to prompt attacks, review it?

I understand the sentiment of "if the AI generated code is good, allow it", but the "productivity" gains in writing code means that, sooner or later, the person using the AI will care less and less about reading and preemptively catching possible errors because there'll be so many alterations that he either has to spend a month reading, or just skim over and accept.

Given Torvalds' attitude towards AI, it's not surprising.

"They've gotten good enough to find bugs because LLMs, AI, are just pattern matchers and code is nothing but patterns in a specific format."

True, but let's not forget that 2 + 2 = 4 can be achieved through a million different patterns^[(((((64 / 2) / 2) / 2) / 2) / 2) + (((((64 / 2) / 2) / 2) / 2) / 2) is a valid pattern for 2 + 2, for instance], so just because AI can find a working pattern doesn't make it good

Linus comparing AI to text editors and fucking compilers shows how high on his own farts he is. Given the same input, a compiler will always produce the same output, down to the last bit. The same cannot be said about AI - throw the same version of claude code with the same prompt on the same computer file and it will produce different results, maybe with a "similar enough" end result, but not identical.

AI is not a tool, it's a million monkeys with keyboards that cannot be held accountable for their output.

It's like half the thread belongs in one of the power_tripping_bastard/mod_abuse communities

Main contributor: claude code.

I'm sure all the features are working exactly as intended with absolutely zero bugs whatsoever.

What was the name of that con that allowed all the banned people from previous cons? Rainfurrest?

Animating foxes with passion, exhibit B: Zootopia

Maned wolves are cool

As someone who lives where they are naturally occurring, I can confirm that they are cool. There's also a specific tree (lobeira, Solanum lycocarpum) that's essential to their diet and needs those wolves to reproduce.