Linux

15224 readers

1011 users here now

A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)

Also, check out:

Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

Ategon@programming.dev

anzo@programming.dev

dwraf_of_ignorance@programming.dev

129

Kernel Summit: "The time has come to make it harder for new people to contribute code to the kernel." -- Linus Torvalds reacting to AI assisted code contribution flood (infosec.pub)

submitted 2 days ago by cm0002@infosec.pub to c/linux@programming.dev

50 comments fedilink hide all child comments

"Torvalds said that the time has come to make it harder for new people to contribute code to the kernel. People like Kroah-Hartman have spent years trying to teach people how to contribute; it is time to stop doing that, he said."

https://lwn.net/Articles/1099594/

It is difficult to summarize exactly how Linus got to this point. Most of the discussion at this years Summit appears to have been related to AI assisted code and how the maintainers are dealing with the increase in code submissions to LKML. Many of the maintainers expressed varying levels of frustration with AI assisted drive-by code submissions. Linus' train of thought is that they make it intentionally more difficult for humans to contribute. A later suggestion of his was to create an AGENTS. md that makes generating kernel code expensive in compute and token time.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

"let people use ai" intentionally removes context. It implies he was good with ai slop in the kernel which he obviously never was and he never implied he was.

Then "damn them for using AI" isn't accurate in the least either. Taking steps to limit an issue isn't punitive or damning. Your image was a complete exaggeration in every way.

An accurate but non cartoonish version would be "hey let's not freak out about ai everyone, we don't need to overreact". Then later "we see a problem here so let's abate it". Your reaction to this seems to imply that if you ever make a statement that isn't a negative, then it's a positive. Then later if you ever present a stance that counters that perceived positive, then you're contradicting yourself. In reality even if the first stance was his, this "new" stance would represent learning and growing. You're discouraging that...

You pushed both statements in opposite directions in order to be mad, or something? I don't know, I don't get it, but it's hard to believe a person could honestly just even skim these articles and take away what you have.

[–] kibiz0r@midwest.social 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I just addressed this in the other thread, but I didn’t notice the ambiguity of “damn” in my original phrasing. I meant it in the sense of “those damn people using AI”, not “damn those people using AI”. It seemed obvious to me in my head, but tone doesn’t really carry across text that well.

Anyway, the point is not that he endorsed slop, but that he adopted a policy which people warned him would ensure slop arrived at his door on a regular basis.

Taking steps now that the problem has become unignorable is perfectly sensible. The silly part is that the problem was easy to predict from months away. He had a chance to get ahead of it. Instead, he chastised the people doing the warning.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world -2 points 1 day ago

Yeah. You may have a good point that I know what you meant. I dunno all the details, I just got from the articles I mostly read that he'd discouraged freaking out about the issue and banning all LLM use. In any case I think the latest stance is a reasonable adjustment to reality. Maybe he should've had it earlier but I won't hold it against him too much