"We're not going to make rules that say you can't use tools for X"

"We're not going to make rules that say you can't use tools for X"(lkml.org)

11 points by majorchord 2 hours ago | 16 comments

smallerize 2 hours ago |

Most projects don't have "lieutenants" that triage incoming patch sets. I totally get why projects smaller than the Linux kernel ban AI code out of self-defense against the tidal wave of crap.

khalidkhair 2 hours ago |

To be honest, I think banning "AI-pioneered" (i.e. code fully written by AI without a single human thought involved) code is still a valid idea since 99% of the time it's solving a non-existent or very edge case-ish issue by adding extra bloat code to the codebase, but what I'm against is banning experienced engineers with good understanding over code from using AI just like any other tool you have to be more productive

MBCook 58 minutes ago | |

I’m sympathetic to his argument that if it’s good code then it’s good code and if it isn’t actually useful or has flaws those are already reasons to reject it.

And since you can’t actually know for sure how much of a piece of code (or commit message) was written by AI you don’t really have a choice, do you? As time goes on and more people try to learn programming using AI a bunch of them may end up picking up some of its stylistic stuff. And if the submitter uses proper kernel formatting standards, will you be able to tell?

MBCook 2 hours ago |

That quote is nowhere in his message.

dang 1 hour ago | |

We've replaced it now. (Submitted title was "Linus Torvalds: "banning AI is stupid and so are you"")

MBCook 1 hour ago | | |

Thank you.

jleyank 2 hours ago |

Hopefully, people don’t look back from a few years on and state that this was the last truly stable or secure versions of the kernel. Yeah, I assume Linus is assuming people understand their submissions but people are lazy. If they were given code in some fashion, it wasn’t thought through.

topham 2 hours ago | |

I'm substantially less worried about the Linux kernel than almost everything else.

Honestly, seeing people go from concern trolling to what I like to call _concern farming_ has been utterly disappointing.

_concern farming_ is when people build entire crops of concerns with no intent to do anything other than fertilize them.

verdverm 1 hour ago | | |

This video from the linux CVE team significantly increased my confidence they will not only be ok, but thrive

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnV_cWeoo5Q

I really like your concern farming, will be using it going forward.

andsoitis 2 hours ago |

He is pretty combative and abrasive.

yuye 2 hours ago | |

Yep, he always has been. But I found he was often right and I did have some respect for him.

I think he's very wrong on this, though.

MBCook 2 hours ago | |

He has made his position clear, repeatedly, for years now. He’s heard the arguments. He’s been in debates over them.

But people will not stop bringing it up over and over again. They just had the kernel summit where it was discussed again.

I imagine he’s REALLY REALLY tired of people continuing to try to start it up again.

Given Linus’ stance that it’s just a tool, which makes sense as a position, it’s really odd to ban only that one tool especially when you know your ban is completely useless to “make a statement”.

andsoitis 2 hours ago | | |

I guess he prefers to spend energy writing a long response explaining things, instead of just ignoring the person OR pointing to prior message and leave it at that.

Just interesting to see how different people handle these situations.

ai_critic 2 hours ago | |

Consider over 30 years of protecting the Linux project from idiots and vultures.

The combativeness is a feature, not a bug.

matt3210 2 hours ago |

Linux is funded by BigCorp and has fallen in line with BigCorps views no their AI investments.

For reals though: Comparing AI to editors or compilers is a massive false equivalency.