@inthehands @drgroftehauge And claiming that enforcement of the law is fascism. The mind boggles.

@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.

@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.

@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 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.