jesus christ, Linux has had a 100% LLM takeover.
-
@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.
-
@the_moep @davidgerard Wasn't there a scandal a few years ago about 9front being riddled with neo-nazis?
@cstross First time hearing about that so not sure? It's just one of the projects on the no-ai list and seems a lot more memey than the other, boring OS. (Although I personally would love to go with NetBSD if they properly reject AI)
-
@the_moep @davidgerard Wasn't there a scandal a few years ago about 9front being riddled with neo-nazis?
@cstross @davidgerard All that I can find online is that they used some nazi imagery ironically at some point in time, similarly to how punk culture tried to deal with skinheads trying to take over I suppose?
I can imagine that happening during the era when 4chan went full on nazi jokes (the ones which later lead to Trump being elected) and them playing with those?
-
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.
-
@cstross @davidgerard All that I can find online is that they used some nazi imagery ironically at some point in time, similarly to how punk culture tried to deal with skinheads trying to take over I suppose?
I can imagine that happening during the era when 4chan went full on nazi jokes (the ones which later lead to Trump being elected) and them playing with those?
@cstross @davidgerard Yeah, I feel like it's pretty obvious they are against nazis, lol: https://9front.org/movies/Dead_Kennedys_-Nazi_Punks_Fuck_Off_lyrics.mp4
-
@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.
What makes you think the security vulnerabilities are real, the patches really fix them, and the patches don't introduce tech debt or other problems?
