Linus Torvalds shares his thoughts on Anti-AI coding rules on Linux mailing list.

[tmw@ioc.exchange]

@nixCraft i'm sick and tired of borderline-eugenicist freakshows like linus and other techbros who are so obsessed with "intelligence" that they dismiss anyone and everyone who doesn't appear to display it in a way that affirms their own egos.

people like this shouldn't be leading or managing anything that involves other people.

[iscarlosmolero@landofooo.social]

@jesse @nixCraft [REDACTED] misallocated hate lol.

[jesse@social.jelliefrontier.net]

@iscarlosmolero @nixCraft Your reply doesn’t match the anti-AI sentiments on your bio, so I’m assuming you didn’t realize I was referring to Linus’ take.

Read slower and be less of a jerk, thanks.

[iscarlosmolero@landofooo.social]

@jesse @nixCraft My apologies @phanpy UI got me tricked. But, in my defense, I would say that AI bros pushing this shit deserve all the hate they can get.

The only problem is that you were not one of them.

[tael@yiff.life]

@nixCraft What a dipshit. If you make a mistake while typing, YOU made the mistake. If the LLM makes a mistake generating code for you, you had nothing to do with it and no way to prevent it.

If your compiler takes good code and introduces a bug, the compiler is bugged, and you can fix it. If the LLM takes your existing codebase and introduces a bug... no shit! What did you expect? There is nothing you can do to fix the LLM, because it's not broken. A compiler is deterministic (as is an editor), an LLM is stochastic. Two totally different categories of software.

The people I respect and call intelligent do their own work and bear full responsibility for it. They have principles and care about quality, reliability, and correctness. They evaluate things on their merits and don't chase fads because they're "new and interesting."

[typhon@piaille.fr]

@prefec2 @nixCraft AI is best for tasks where quality doesn't matter, where the result doesn't matter.

Which ideally should be none of them.

[maia@mastodon.art]

@ireneista @loadhigh @nixCraft he really doesn’t get it at all. i don’t know if he’s being deliberately obtuse or if he’s just that hopelessly clueless, but it really seems to be the latter

[bekindrewind@ioc.exchange]

@nixCraft

I feel like AI is spewing out code it was trained with off projects that people aren't aware of, there's no attribution of that code.

So what happens if you take copywritten closed-source project code and add it to your open source project without knowing where that code snippet came from? Legally this sort of thing might kill open source projects as a result. Is Anthropic going to state all code generated is open source and copyright free? I don't think they can, and that is going to pollute the kernel?

AI code is extremely problematic in this sense.

[ireneista@adhd.irenes.space]

@maia @loadhigh @nixCraft we encourage, as much as possible, focusing on the extensional properties of people in positions of responsibility, rather than their intensional ones

that is, we can't know what they're thinking, but we can know what they're doing

(edit: sorry, forgot we were gonna CW this)

[dzwiedziu@mastodon.social]

@wizbean
Does he? I mean he prompted it wrong

@nixCraft

[datarama@hachyderm.io]

@omnivorous_narrator @nixCraft

> certified prompt engineer

what.

[goutcurdleclone@mastodon.social]

@datarama @omnivorous_narrator @nixCraft certified haruspex

[wcbdata@vis.social]

@nixCraft The thing is, he misunderstands the technology entirely. it's not a tool. It doesn't make coding easier; it generates stuff that looks like code and sometimes runs. It doesn't write documentation; it generates text that resembles documentation and sometimes reflects the way the code runs. This isn't like a table saw making accurate cuts easier, it's like paying a million people to repeatedly dump glue and sawdust together and then hand over the result that most resembles a board.