cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/53243174
this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2026
543 points (97.2% liked)
Programmer Humor
33695 readers
947 users here now
Welcome to Programmer Humor!
This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!
For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.
Rules
- Keep content in english
- No advertisements
- Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics
- If the mod doesn't find it funny, you're banned. Ha-ha!... For real: do not use the community for "statements". There are other places for such content. Keep it chill and funny.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Maybe I'm just being optimistic, but I trust Torvalds. The same can't be said about the typical vibe-coder, though.
Tbh I trusted him up until the point where he compared AI to compilers. That's just absolutely crutial misunderstanding where the issues with AI usage lies. Comparing using compiler to code, vs using AI to code, is so immensly stupid that I have started doubting him.
Not because I don't trust in his skill, but because AI is addicting and dealing with additction/risk of psychosis responsibly takes an entirely different skillset. And resorting to toxicity when defending AI with absolutely bonkers arguments, like reducing it's risk to "ShOuLd We AlSo bAn CoMpIlErS? WrItE iN aSeMbLy!!" is not a good sign that he is handling it well.
And he even compared it to using a fucking text editor to write commit messages, that wanting to limit AI use in commited code is the same as wanting to ban text editor usage. That's just plain insane misunderstanding of what the issues are.
What!! You would use an assembler to make binaries to run on a general purpose machine code interpreter instead of using an atomic knife and a salt-accelerator to write the instructions on a silicon die?
Albsoluridonculoustrous!
But honestly, if he is saying that, I now have a good reason to assume he can't be trusted with having proper logic in the kernel.
IIRC one big problem with using AI code in Linux was license of created code. If that is somehow fixed, which is not the case, then it might at least be fine for those coming in the future.
You have good reason to trust him. Trusting the future however is a losing game.
Yeah, there's a distinction between using an LLM as a tool and letting the LLM be in control.