jesus christ, Linux has had a 100% LLM takeover.
-
@davidgerard Well. So much for the Year of the Linux Desktop.
@kawa @davidgerard Year of the Linux Bin Bottom
-
@jookia@social.tchncs.de @davidgerard Do you specifically mean an operating system project? Because AntiX Linux are doing their best despite a hostile upstream they can't control.
But you did say "project", which covers... well, everything I've published for other people to use in the last 5 months, at intentionally small project scales. I'm literally going to be working on #Moonshine today in ways that make it even more useful for people trying to interact with the Fediverse on low-spec devices, low bandwidth, or just trying to manage their own attention better.
Not trying to unduly self-promo. I just found out about Cavern, a WIP by @varx earlier today.
-
@jookia@social.tchncs.de @davidgerard@circumstances.run @MaddieM4@raphus.social the amount of bad faith pessimism in that reply is astronomical but also scroll down literally five pixels
-
jesus christ, Linux has had a 100% LLM takeover.
this project is completely cooked.
even after the AI bubble pop, it's not clear how to recover from this level of bullshit from this level of bullshitter.
https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/1099594/be20382b54a9b4cd/
> Linus Torvalds believes that blaming LLMs for the kernel community's problems is wrong, when the problem is LLM users who do not understand how to use them or how the kernel works. A properly trained LLM is a useful tool, but it takes a lot of time to reach that point.
> Torvalds and others repeatedly said low-quality contributions from new developers should receive low priority, and that the community should stop trying to make contribution easy. Many developers said, repeatedly, that trying to mentor those developers is almost always a waste of time; they do not listen.
> There is some concern about companies maintaining private kernels with LLM help, but there does not seem to be much to be done about it.
> Kernel developers should not be required to use LLMs to work in the community, but those who do need to have enough resources available to generate acceptable results.
The requirement to add Assisted-by tags to patches created with LLMs will be removed, but maintainers still want to know about how a patch was created.so how's it going already?
> The development community is struggling to keep up with the flood of security patches, and will continue to for some time. Some of the most urgent fixes may bypass maintainers and go straight to Torvalds. Maintainers were cautioned against telling their employers about vulnerabilities before public disclosure happens.
Really, I'm not out to suck ass as much as Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional side effect.
@davidgerard “the community should stop trying to make contribution easy.” Oh, were they trying? I couldn’t tell.
So then, as a matter of policy, it is difficult to contribute as an attempt at discouraging low-effort patches. And they also do not want to teach new people how to contribute. But spam bots don’t get discouraged, so they’re still around. So now they complain about the patch spam and blame new contributors but see no problem with the system. Fascinating.
-
jesus christ, Linux has had a 100% LLM takeover.
this project is completely cooked.
even after the AI bubble pop, it's not clear how to recover from this level of bullshit from this level of bullshitter.
https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/1099594/be20382b54a9b4cd/
> Linus Torvalds believes that blaming LLMs for the kernel community's problems is wrong, when the problem is LLM users who do not understand how to use them or how the kernel works. A properly trained LLM is a useful tool, but it takes a lot of time to reach that point.
> Torvalds and others repeatedly said low-quality contributions from new developers should receive low priority, and that the community should stop trying to make contribution easy. Many developers said, repeatedly, that trying to mentor those developers is almost always a waste of time; they do not listen.
> There is some concern about companies maintaining private kernels with LLM help, but there does not seem to be much to be done about it.
> Kernel developers should not be required to use LLMs to work in the community, but those who do need to have enough resources available to generate acceptable results.
The requirement to add Assisted-by tags to patches created with LLMs will be removed, but maintainers still want to know about how a patch was created.so how's it going already?
> The development community is struggling to keep up with the flood of security patches, and will continue to for some time. Some of the most urgent fixes may bypass maintainers and go straight to Torvalds. Maintainers were cautioned against telling their employers about vulnerabilities before public disclosure happens.
Really, I'm not out to suck ass as much as Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional side effect.
@davidgerard
That entire discussion was one big long category error. A #LLM does not "write code" just like it does not "write a poem". It creates a MODEL of code, or a MODEL of a poem, which a human being then decides to USE as code or USE as a poem. Just like a urinal wasn't a piece of art until Marcel Duchamp displayed it as art, signed by R. Mutt 1917.
People who "don't know how to use it" are confused by the difference between a map and the actual landscape. -
jesus christ, Linux has had a 100% LLM takeover.
this project is completely cooked.
even after the AI bubble pop, it's not clear how to recover from this level of bullshit from this level of bullshitter.
https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/1099594/be20382b54a9b4cd/
> Linus Torvalds believes that blaming LLMs for the kernel community's problems is wrong, when the problem is LLM users who do not understand how to use them or how the kernel works. A properly trained LLM is a useful tool, but it takes a lot of time to reach that point.
> Torvalds and others repeatedly said low-quality contributions from new developers should receive low priority, and that the community should stop trying to make contribution easy. Many developers said, repeatedly, that trying to mentor those developers is almost always a waste of time; they do not listen.
> There is some concern about companies maintaining private kernels with LLM help, but there does not seem to be much to be done about it.
> Kernel developers should not be required to use LLMs to work in the community, but those who do need to have enough resources available to generate acceptable results.
The requirement to add Assisted-by tags to patches created with LLMs will be removed, but maintainers still want to know about how a patch was created.so how's it going already?
> The development community is struggling to keep up with the flood of security patches, and will continue to for some time. Some of the most urgent fixes may bypass maintainers and go straight to Torvalds. Maintainers were cautioned against telling their employers about vulnerabilities before public disclosure happens.
Really, I'm not out to suck ass as much as Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional side effect.
@davidgerard @jaypatelani shame, I was on the cusp of switching to it
-
jesus christ, Linux has had a 100% LLM takeover.
this project is completely cooked.
even after the AI bubble pop, it's not clear how to recover from this level of bullshit from this level of bullshitter.
https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/1099594/be20382b54a9b4cd/
> Linus Torvalds believes that blaming LLMs for the kernel community's problems is wrong, when the problem is LLM users who do not understand how to use them or how the kernel works. A properly trained LLM is a useful tool, but it takes a lot of time to reach that point.
> Torvalds and others repeatedly said low-quality contributions from new developers should receive low priority, and that the community should stop trying to make contribution easy. Many developers said, repeatedly, that trying to mentor those developers is almost always a waste of time; they do not listen.
> There is some concern about companies maintaining private kernels with LLM help, but there does not seem to be much to be done about it.
> Kernel developers should not be required to use LLMs to work in the community, but those who do need to have enough resources available to generate acceptable results.
The requirement to add Assisted-by tags to patches created with LLMs will be removed, but maintainers still want to know about how a patch was created.so how's it going already?
> The development community is struggling to keep up with the flood of security patches, and will continue to for some time. Some of the most urgent fixes may bypass maintainers and go straight to Torvalds. Maintainers were cautioned against telling their employers about vulnerabilities before public disclosure happens.
Really, I'm not out to suck ass as much as Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional side effect.
@davidgerard "the problem is not in LLM but in how people uses LLM" from tech people gives me the same vibes as "the problem is not in communism but how people implemented communism" from soviet people. you're doing jihad extremely wrong kinda argument !
-
@davidgerard Well. So much for the Year of the Linux Desktop.
@kawa @davidgerard approaching Skype levels of lining up the kick for years and then showing up too drunk and flinging a shoe into the sky instead
-
@jookia@social.tchncs.de @davidgerard@circumstances.run @MaddieM4@raphus.social huh? what are you talking about? there's only one part talking about developers and it's at the fucking bottom of the page, it only occupies like 1/20th of the space. Everything else is showing the user experience.
get your eyes checked out, and your negative biases as well while you're at it -
@jookia@social.tchncs.de @davidgerard@circumstances.run @MaddieM4@raphus.social huh? what are you talking about? there's only one part talking about developers and it's at the fucking bottom of the page, it only occupies like 1/20th of the space. Everything else is showing the user experience.
get your eyes checked out, and your negative biases as well while you're at it@jookia@social.tchncs.de @davidgerard@circumstances.run @MaddieM4@raphus.social if you want developer info, there's https://developer.elementary.io/, but don't go saying elementary is only for developers, you're straight up lying
-
@jookia@social.tchncs.de @k0nstruct @davidgerard The project with "USER FRIENDLY" in the giantest of fonts also spends a decent amount of time talking about being developer-friendly - a thing which is important to emphasize if you want the project to have a vibrant suite of user-friendly software beyond what a single dev can accomplish solo? STRAIGHT TO THE STOCKADES WITH 'EM!
I do actually want you to sit with the idea that your relentless soul-sucking pity party, which really only serves to satisfy yourself that there's nothing that could be done (and certainly nothing you could do), is far more selfish than even the baseline selfishness of traditional FOSS. It's transparent to the people around you. I personally don't have patience to deal with that all day, I have permanent, respectful and slopless software to ship to people. Good luck, have whatever your idea of fun is.
-
jesus christ, Linux has had a 100% LLM takeover.
this project is completely cooked.
even after the AI bubble pop, it's not clear how to recover from this level of bullshit from this level of bullshitter.
https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/1099594/be20382b54a9b4cd/
> Linus Torvalds believes that blaming LLMs for the kernel community's problems is wrong, when the problem is LLM users who do not understand how to use them or how the kernel works. A properly trained LLM is a useful tool, but it takes a lot of time to reach that point.
> Torvalds and others repeatedly said low-quality contributions from new developers should receive low priority, and that the community should stop trying to make contribution easy. Many developers said, repeatedly, that trying to mentor those developers is almost always a waste of time; they do not listen.
> There is some concern about companies maintaining private kernels with LLM help, but there does not seem to be much to be done about it.
> Kernel developers should not be required to use LLMs to work in the community, but those who do need to have enough resources available to generate acceptable results.
The requirement to add Assisted-by tags to patches created with LLMs will be removed, but maintainers still want to know about how a patch was created.so how's it going already?
> The development community is struggling to keep up with the flood of security patches, and will continue to for some time. Some of the most urgent fixes may bypass maintainers and go straight to Torvalds. Maintainers were cautioned against telling their employers about vulnerabilities before public disclosure happens.
Really, I'm not out to suck ass as much as Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional side effect.
@davidgerard Unfortunately not surprised. This was deemed to happen since Linus said the "it's just a tool" (and he keeps saying it **every damn time**).
-
jesus christ, Linux has had a 100% LLM takeover.
this project is completely cooked.
even after the AI bubble pop, it's not clear how to recover from this level of bullshit from this level of bullshitter.
https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/1099594/be20382b54a9b4cd/
> Linus Torvalds believes that blaming LLMs for the kernel community's problems is wrong, when the problem is LLM users who do not understand how to use them or how the kernel works. A properly trained LLM is a useful tool, but it takes a lot of time to reach that point.
> Torvalds and others repeatedly said low-quality contributions from new developers should receive low priority, and that the community should stop trying to make contribution easy. Many developers said, repeatedly, that trying to mentor those developers is almost always a waste of time; they do not listen.
> There is some concern about companies maintaining private kernels with LLM help, but there does not seem to be much to be done about it.
> Kernel developers should not be required to use LLMs to work in the community, but those who do need to have enough resources available to generate acceptable results.
The requirement to add Assisted-by tags to patches created with LLMs will be removed, but maintainers still want to know about how a patch was created.so how's it going already?
> The development community is struggling to keep up with the flood of security patches, and will continue to for some time. Some of the most urgent fixes may bypass maintainers and go straight to Torvalds. Maintainers were cautioned against telling their employers about vulnerabilities before public disclosure happens.
Really, I'm not out to suck ass as much as Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional side effect.
@davidgerard : to summarize : "LLMs are useful if you know how to use them. We allow LLMs. In an unrelated note, we also have a problem of new contributors not being good enough and not willing to learn."
How to explain your problem and its solution you don’t want to see in the same sentence…
-
jesus christ, Linux has had a 100% LLM takeover.
this project is completely cooked.
even after the AI bubble pop, it's not clear how to recover from this level of bullshit from this level of bullshitter.
https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/1099594/be20382b54a9b4cd/
> Linus Torvalds believes that blaming LLMs for the kernel community's problems is wrong, when the problem is LLM users who do not understand how to use them or how the kernel works. A properly trained LLM is a useful tool, but it takes a lot of time to reach that point.
> Torvalds and others repeatedly said low-quality contributions from new developers should receive low priority, and that the community should stop trying to make contribution easy. Many developers said, repeatedly, that trying to mentor those developers is almost always a waste of time; they do not listen.
> There is some concern about companies maintaining private kernels with LLM help, but there does not seem to be much to be done about it.
> Kernel developers should not be required to use LLMs to work in the community, but those who do need to have enough resources available to generate acceptable results.
The requirement to add Assisted-by tags to patches created with LLMs will be removed, but maintainers still want to know about how a patch was created.so how's it going already?
> The development community is struggling to keep up with the flood of security patches, and will continue to for some time. Some of the most urgent fixes may bypass maintainers and go straight to Torvalds. Maintainers were cautioned against telling their employers about vulnerabilities before public disclosure happens.
Really, I'm not out to suck ass as much as Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional side effect.
@davidgerard I hate to even respond to this post, but it's just so misguided that I can't in good conscience ignore it. You are cherry-picking partial quotes and taking them out of context in what appears to be a deliberate effort to discredit what are actually carefully considered and nuanced positions. As you're characterizing things, you'd think the kernel maintainers have just opened the LLM floodgates, when in fact they very much have not, and slop submissions are not accepted.
-
@davidgerard I hate to even respond to this post, but it's just so misguided that I can't in good conscience ignore it. You are cherry-picking partial quotes and taking them out of context in what appears to be a deliberate effort to discredit what are actually carefully considered and nuanced positions. As you're characterizing things, you'd think the kernel maintainers have just opened the LLM floodgates, when in fact they very much have not, and slop submissions are not accepted.
@davidgerard looking at this one:
> The development community is struggling to keep up with the flood of security patches, and will continue to for some time. Some of the most urgent fixes may bypass maintainers and go straight to Torvalds. Maintainers were cautioned against telling their employers about vulnerabilities before public disclosure happens.
How is it that security patches are a bad thing? Are you suggesting that they're only in LLM generated code? (they're not)
-
@davidgerard looking at this one:
> The development community is struggling to keep up with the flood of security patches, and will continue to for some time. Some of the most urgent fixes may bypass maintainers and go straight to Torvalds. Maintainers were cautioned against telling their employers about vulnerabilities before public disclosure happens.
How is it that security patches are a bad thing? Are you suggesting that they're only in LLM generated code? (they're not)
@davidgerard LLMs are discovering legitimate flaws in human-written code, and are often being used to generate fixes as well. There are many of these flaws, which is why there's this flood of security patches. Fixing these is a good thing, even if it taxes the maintainers for some time. The end result will be a better and safer kernel.
-
@jookia@social.tchncs.de @davidgerard@circumstances.run @MaddieM4@raphus.social I don't think it's your fault. You didn't choose to be autistic. I also am, but it's a spectrum. My experience is different. One doesn't choose to be disabled, therefore one cannot be guilty of being less able.
I got defensive as well. I apologize. I like elementaryOS because it's depressingly rare to have queer projects survive or even thrive. Those feelings didn't have much to do with accessibility.
Still, I think there are things to learn from elementary if one were to design something new and user-centric. Puritanism is a very slippery slope that only becomes evident once you turn your back to every ally and inspiration you had. So don't be afraid to observe attempts from others to learn from how they go, even if they're not up to your standards.
That's everything of value I could add to this discourse, good day :] -
@davidgerard
9front is the way forward.@the_moep @davidgerard Wasn't there a scandal a few years ago about 9front being riddled with neo-nazis?
-
@davidgerard : to summarize : "LLMs are useful if you know how to use them. We allow LLMs. In an unrelated note, we also have a problem of new contributors not being good enough and not willing to learn."
How to explain your problem and its solution you don’t want to see in the same sentence…
@ploum This is not a Linux problem, though, not an LLM problem. If you want new contributors, they must be willing to learn the tools and expectations. Whether it's LLMs or git or github or the kernel mailing lists, people need to understand the tools and expectations around their use. If people keep submitting low-effort LLM contributions, that does not mean that all usage of an LLM is low-effort.
