Setting maybe aside your concerns about reactionary language, I can’t really discern from Linus’ comments how “slop” is coming to the Kernel project, as opposed to any LLM contribution undergoing...
Setting maybe aside your concerns about reactionary language, I can’t really discern from Linus’ comments how “slop” is coming to the Kernel project, as opposed to any LLM contribution undergoing the regular process of review, sign-off, and ultimately responsible (human) person via the sign-off/DCO.
I get the feeling this issue isn’t about code quality alone, as “slop” would imply to me at first. But if that’s really the case, maybe a better name is required. “Opposing LLM contribution on moral grounds” or similar, perhaps?
If that is not the case however, could someone enlighten me where you see cracks in the way Linux/-s wants to handle this topic going forward? Genuinely asking, as I felt the decisions so far to be coming from a mostly realist/pragmatic standpoint.
Edit, but posting standalone because I think it’s worth it: LWN: Development statistics for the 7.2 kernel About the article’s last plotted graph (take a look!): (sentence in bold highlighted by me)
Edit, but posting standalone because I think it’s worth it:
About the article’s last plotted graph (take a look!):
The noteworthy part of the plot, though, is at the right-hand side, where the number of commits carrying Fixes tags increases dramatically, after having been roughly level for quite a few releases. That, it seems, is what happens once large numbers of people start turning LLMs toward the task of finding bugs in existing software. This is going to be an interesting trend to watch. The number of bugs cannot be infinite — even in the kernel — so the rate of bug detection and fixing must eventually fall off. The existing bugs will have been fixed, and LLM review will have reduced the number of new bugs introduced. At least, that is the hope.
If that drop-off does not happen, there will be some interesting questions to answer. It seems reasonably clear that the spread of LLMs has enabled people to create kernel patches who would not have been capable of doing so before. If that is true, it is not much of a stretch to conclude that, in many cases, the submitters of these patches do not fully understand what those patches do. Perhaps the LLMs are good enough that this understanding is no longer necessary, but it could also be that we are creating a pile of code that nobody has ever really understood, but which will need to be maintained in the coming years.
The Linux kernel is aimed at production use, not research or experimentation. But there is currently a massive experiment being run on the kernel's development processes and community. This community has absorbed new processes and tools many times over its 35-year history, and will almost certainly find a way to do that this time as well. But that absorption has not always been without turbulence along the way.
Meanwhile, there are nearly 14,000 non-merge changesets sitting in the linux-next repository and poised to be pulled for the 7.3 release; over 1,100 of them contain Assisted-by tags. It would seem that the high level of activity that has characterized recent releases will not be ending anytime soon.
I have fully embraced Linux over the past couple years and really do not like Linus’ recent stance, right wing dog whistles, and sucking up to corporate. What can one do?
I have fully embraced Linux over the past couple years and really do not like Linus’ recent stance, right wing dog whistles, and sucking up to corporate. What can one do?
Didn't Linus just say that he doesn't care if a commit is made by AI as long as it's good code? It was a fairly milquetoast statement. The right wing dog whistles is a specific repo that's being...
Didn't Linus just say that he doesn't care if a commit is made by AI as long as it's good code? It was a fairly milquetoast statement.
The right wing dog whistles is a specific repo that's being funded/made by one specific dipshit. There's nothing that Linux can do against that, and frankly speaking it shouldn't try. It would be a huge blow against GPL.
That is not what I am referencing. I am referring to the video I linked where the speakers argued Linus is rewriting the history of Linus as not being a Social Warrior project is one not true and...
The right wing dog whistles is a specific repo that's being funded/made by one specific dipshit.
That is not what I am referencing. I am referring to the video I linked where the speakers argued Linus is rewriting the history of Linus as not being a Social Warrior project is one not true and is two specifically using conservative reactionary language.
Funny. You can do whatever you want, from switching to BSD or even more niche open-source software to forking the whole thing yourself. But you probably meant, what can one do without devoting a...
What can one do?
Funny. You can do whatever you want, from switching to BSD or even more niche open-source software to forking the whole thing yourself.
But you probably meant, what can one do without devoting a significant fraction of your life's time and energy to it. Because utility software is not truly a priority for most of us. In that case, I suggest coming to terms with your available capacity and focusing on your true priorities in life. Possibly by contributing to local political efforts, which is where most of us have the most leverage.
Setting maybe aside your concerns about reactionary language, I can’t really discern from Linus’ comments how “slop” is coming to the Kernel project, as opposed to any LLM contribution undergoing the regular process of review, sign-off, and ultimately responsible (human) person via the sign-off/DCO.
I get the feeling this issue isn’t about code quality alone, as “slop” would imply to me at first. But if that’s really the case, maybe a better name is required. “Opposing LLM contribution on moral grounds” or similar, perhaps?
If that is not the case however, could someone enlighten me where you see cracks in the way Linux/-s wants to handle this topic going forward? Genuinely asking, as I felt the decisions so far to be coming from a mostly realist/pragmatic standpoint.
Edit, but posting standalone because I think it’s worth it:
LWN: Development statistics for the 7.2 kernel
About the article’s last plotted graph (take a look!):
(sentence in bold highlighted by me)
I have fully embraced Linux over the past couple years and really do not like Linus’ recent stance, right wing dog whistles, and sucking up to corporate. What can one do?
Didn't Linus just say that he doesn't care if a commit is made by AI as long as it's good code? It was a fairly milquetoast statement.
The right wing dog whistles is a specific repo that's being funded/made by one specific dipshit. There's nothing that Linux can do against that, and frankly speaking it shouldn't try. It would be a huge blow against GPL.
That is not what I am referencing. I am referring to the video I linked where the speakers argued Linus is rewriting the history of Linus as not being a Social Warrior project is one not true and is two specifically using conservative reactionary language.
Funny. You can do whatever you want, from switching to BSD or even more niche open-source software to forking the whole thing yourself.
But you probably meant, what can one do without devoting a significant fraction of your life's time and energy to it. Because utility software is not truly a priority for most of us. In that case, I suggest coming to terms with your available capacity and focusing on your true priorities in life. Possibly by contributing to local political efforts, which is where most of us have the most leverage.