185
this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2026
185 points (92.6% liked)
Fuck AI
8115 readers
4290 users here now
"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"
A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.
AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is absolutely not true. The email is very direct, and the specific context doesn't change anything. Here's the full text:
Yes.
And no, that's not the position of the Linux kernel.
I realize that some people really dislike AI, but this is an area where I'm willing to absolutely put my foot down as the top-level maintainer.
Linux is not one of those anti-AI projects, and if somebody has issues with that, they can do the open-source thing and fork it.
Or just walk away.
AI is a tool, just like other tools we use. And it's clearly a useful one.
It may not have been that "clearly" even just a year ago, but it's no longer in question today.
There are other questions around AI (like what the economy of it will actually look like in the end), but "is it useful" is no longer one of those questions. Anybody who doubts that clearly hasn't actually used it.
Yes, it can also be a somewhat painful tool, both for maintainer workloads and just from a "it keeps finding embarrassing bugs" standpoint.
But the solution is not to put your head in the sand and sing "La La La, I can't hear you" at the top of your voice like some people seem to do.
The solution is to make sure those LLM tools help maintainers instead of just causing them pain. There's no question on that side.
We're not forcing anybody to use it, but I will very loudly ignore people who try to argue against other people from using it.
And no, AI isn't perfect. But Christ, anybody who points to the problems at AI had better be looking in the mirror and pointing at themselves at the same time.
Because it's not like natural intelligence is always all that great either.
The kernel project has been and will continue to be about the technology.
Sure, the social angle of working on open source is important and often a very motivating part of the project, but in the end that's a side benefit, not the point of the project.
This is NOT some kind of "social warrior" project, never has been, and never will be.
In the kernel community we do open source because it results in better technology, not because of religious reasons.
And so we make decisions primarily based on technical merit. Not fear of new tools.
Yeah I think you’re right, when it comes to AI as a coding tool. I heard someone ask something like "where on the scale from flashlight to violin would you put LLM tools for coding". By that, they meant, if you use a flashlight, and it doesn’t work, you’re pretty sure it’s not your lack of experience with the tool - the tool is just broken. But if you play a violin and it sounds like shit, it’s probably because you’re not versed enough to play it (or at the very least you don’t know if it’s you or the violin who’s at fault), assuming you don’t play the violin.
If one finds LLMs unhelpful for coding, is it them not knowing how to play it, or is the tool inherently broken? It’s very arrogant to believe one is so knowledgeable about a tool, one which is in constant development too, that it is not them who is using it wrong, but rather the tool that is wrong.
There’s a plethora of other areas of just criticism of the technology, but I think how useful it is for coding is not one of them.
Aside: your "manmade" line breaks make your comment harder to read on a phone. I guess it’s a hard habit to break, but I would suggest you try. Most places people type text to be read by other these days, one should account for vastly different resolutions and aspect ratios (e.g. vertical & horisontal monitors). Adding in line breaks where it looks good on your screen is like writing text for yourself to read. That’s my personal opinion at least
The fact that you have to "prompt-engineer" means that the tool has a terrible interface.
In your flaslight analogy, there's an on/off button that doesn't work. You have to flip the flashlight, tap it twice, check the batteries and flip it twice again. Then it turns on.
The fact that LLM coding tools are basically micro-managing with a special twist "knowing how to prompt", makes it a shit tool for a lot of people. And they are justified in thinking so.
You can't hone a skill you have little control over. It's like a hammer that strikes a random area within a certain radius of a nail.
Context engineering is a skill analogous to communicating a problem to fellow maintainers. This typically involves articulating the issue within an issue tracker, pull request, or comment using written text. Therefore, proficiency in "prompt engineering" is essentially a measure of one's articulacy.
So it's not a "useful tool for coding" then, if the quality of the output depends of one's ability to articulate in a way that tickles the LLM "the right way".
Also, no matter how well you articulate, the output is still somewhat random. You can produce two different sections of code with (essentially) the same prompt, which also just means that theres an amount of luck and percieved randomness in a tool.
Imagine you want a piece of software written but you're hiring it out, like a lot of corporations do. You write up a loose specification and hand it to two different dev shops and you'll get two wildly different results. The tighter the spec, the closer the results will be.
It's not much different from that.
Indeed. I agree that it's not a tool, but a type of outsourcing.
Following my analogy with the archer, promting the right way is like accounting for wind. And again, no matter how much the best archers in the world account for wind, they do sometimes miss. Still very impressive how high their skill is, even with randomness involved. And with agentic coding, one can always shoot twice.