You build your OS atop thousands of open source packages, many of which contain AI generated code. Are you going to audit them one by one and remove offending packages? What about the ones you won't remove because the OS would be irreparably broken?
I have yet to understand how maintainers can't distinguish beyond (1) PRs that literally include Claude co-author notes or (2) low quality code contribution regardless of the creator.
Being hand written is no guarantee of high quality, just like using LLMs is no guarantee of low quality.
This is just really silly.
The more I think about this the more I think it's like self-driving cars. We have this expectation that self-driving cars MUST be 101% safe and never get into any accidents, ever, before the technology is worth adopting. LLMs are the same -- it's like we think if you can't one-shot a prompt and get perfect software out of it, it's failed. You can choose to spend time getting the LLM to refine the code it's written, review the architecture, come up with an actual engineering process around the LLM. Yes that means you'll be producing less code per time spent -- which is a good thing.
Are you in Python by chance? Python has a lot of crazy hidden/inexplicit/spooky action at a distance stuff (especially in the frameworks) that can make LLMs gunk up code by defensively programming or just burn context chasing data provenance
Late 2025 also had a step change when agents could largely code autonomously without handholding like previously, and to be honest it's not worth hearing opinions about AI from before that time, that's how significant the change was.
I think a PR "in flight" shouldn't have been closed like that.
All this will do is push out developers like you that honestly disclose, and instead people will now just lie.
Faith is the problem. Extraordinary claims must stand up to scrutiny. They do not.
My repos probably don't see as much traffic as SQLAlchemy though.
Which is why LLM PRs should just be issues (if there isn’t one already). Make the issue author a co-author on the PR. But let the maintainer actually oversee the LLM generated solution.
So basically you're saying you reject drive-by PRs.
I have a hard time knowing if anti AI is a mental illness or propaganda coming out of China.
Unironically.
Separately, why would anyone use a Debian based desktop OS? Your $11 Amazon mouse won't work. An Nvidia card won't work. Just use Fedora.
I think even amongst the HN and Linux userbase, pop_os is still niche, let alone amongst normies who never heard about Linux. So they can afford take the high road and treat it like their personal sandbox accepting only human written code.
But larger and more important projects like Fedora and Debian are more realistic and pragmatic with the fact that they'll have to accept AI written(but human reviewed) code, if they wish to keep up with the real world development and threats, as expressed by Linus Torvalds himself.
The thing is, the cat's out of the bag on this one now, especially in the fields of pen-testing and reverse-engineering. AI can brute-force its way into projects in ways that beat experienced researchers, so your only choice to keep up is to accept the use of AI generated fixes as a counter defense.
(I wasn't able to make it work on a scrap Dell I tried it on because the GPU was too old. Booted the USB key and COSMIC greeter failed to start)
That is such a weird statement that I am not entirely certain where to begin. PopOS is hardly niche. Its base are all fairly common components by linux standards. And, more importantly, attackers and bad actors may other considerations in mind than sheer population size -- just to point out the glaringly obvious.
<< I think even amongst the HN and Linux userbase, pop_os is still niche
I think rather than trying to disprove it, I think I should ask why you think that? If anything, PopOS annoys me because it is just a step before ubuntu ( and ubuntu is just windows at this point ). Maybe I am defensive, because my first real distribution ( that did not share disk with windows was popos )?
Reminder that AI is quite stupid.
If that's your threat model then you shouldn't use any SW in exitance, FOSS or otherwise. In fact you shouldn't even go online, or even outside you own house, since one single bad actors exist everywhere. You can walk down the street and suddenly someone in a car runs you over(witnessed myself). And yet live goes on.
Save your "you're holding it wrong" if you're not going to suggest how to hold it.
Cult speak escape hatches are intellectually lazy.
What was your process?
1) Firstly, surce? My research according to Google Gemini 3.8 Pro shows top 5 DEs are as follows:
+---+---------------+------------+-------------------------------------+
| # | Environment | Est. Share | Primary Ecosystem / Defaults |
+---+---------------+------------+-------------------------------------+
| 1 | GNOME | 45% - 50% | Ubuntu, Fedora, Debian, RHEL |
| 2 | KDE Plasma | 25% - 30% | SteamOS, openSUSE, Kubuntu, Manjaro |
| 3 | Cinnamon | 8% - 12% | Linux Mint flagship |
| 4 | Xfce | 6% - 9% | MX Linux, Xubuntu, low-spec PCs |
| 5 | MATE | 2% - 4% | Ubuntu MATE, Mint MATE (GNOME 2) |
| - | Others / WMs | 3% - 5% | Hyprland, i3, Sway, LXQt, Budgie |
+---+---------------+------------+-------------------------------------+
3) And thirdly, TOP 5 DE isn't really an achievement when Linux DE market share is overwhelmingly dominated by KDE Plasma and Gnome as the majority shareholders, with XFCE and Cinnamon trailing. So Cosmic DE if it somehow made the no. 5 spot, would still be ignorable sub <1% market share, as I initially claimed, basically invisible to bad actors.
"Way too defensive" how? By asking and bringing data for my PoV?
>GP replying to you was clearly trying to have a conversation
As am I, except I ask for and bring data to back up my PoV, instead of vague opinions.
>Chill.
Where am I not being chill?