Avoiding software without AI code is getting very difficult.
  • AlcoholicPenis@futurology.todayEnglish
    0·
    2 hours ago

    I guess Linux is turning into AI slop as well. God it feels like everything we hold dear is under attack these days. Is BSD any better or are they sycophantic AI bros too?

  • Blaster M@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    22 hours ago

    Headline is a neuron activation lightning rod. Torvalds used the model to debug, the code is a one word fix he probably wrote himself.

    This is the actual commit:

    https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/818bebeb63dd6bf5f4e07e145f6cdbace520a34c

    It fixes a goof where Intel Xe drivers allocate a few kb of memory that is used by the system during boot that causes the video to stop working. The fix is round_down() the memory allocation instead of round_up() the memory allocation. That’s pretty much the entire code change. round_up() -> round_down(). The commit message makes a lot of sense, and this bug is something you’d be spending a lot of time on manually debugging due to how insidiously subtle it is. Torvalds used the AI model to help debug the problem, but I’m pretty sure a one word change in code is not an AI generated code… and if changing one word is what the AI really did in the end, where do you draw the line at copyright? Challenging the copyright of individual words is impossible to enforce, because the word is used everywhere.

      • eremophila@lemmy.zip
        0·
        24 hours ago

        the /s is because it was douchelord linus who said that

        the /ns is because linus torvalds is pro ai, so he may as well be douchelord linus

  • thunderousApplaus@sh.itjust.works
    0·
    1 day ago

    Reading these comments I have to contend that the halo effect is indeed powerful.

    IMO it’s immoral to use LLM’s for any and every purpose and I think every slopper should be called out; no matter how accomplished they are.

    • _g_be@lemmy.world
      0·
      1 day ago

      I agree with your view but I also wonder if it’s misguided. If we were to use it as a tool, but the tool was made of parts that are immoral does that taint everything about it? I use a phone and a calculator, both are made with metals that are mined in dangerous conditions by exploited laborers. A pixel phone and Gemini AI are both products of google, wouldn’t either be enough to discredit a user?

      There’s no ethical consumption under capitalism (derogatory)

      • thunderousApplaus@sh.itjust.works
        0·
        16 hours ago

        Perfect is the enemy of good. Just because every consumption choice cannot be ethical, doesn’t mean none of them should be.

        I am condemning Linus and other like him because the choice to not use LLM’s isn’t a difficult one to make. You only lose a little comfort. So when you choose to trade everything shitty that LLM usage necessitates for a little comfort, just as Linus likes to say, you can go fuck yourself.

  • DigDoug@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    1 day ago

    Since Linus spends most of his time reviewing changes to the code in the kernel, he’s probably one of the few people I’d trust to have properly vetted any AI code he used.

    That being said, since you have no idea what code was scraped to generate the fix, it seems to me like that it shouldn’t be able to be licensed under the GPL, though I’m no lawyer.

  • A Sharky Anthro@fedia.io
    0·
    1 day ago

    It’s more like he used the LLM to do the grunt work of finding the issue, but he ultimately had to fix it because the thing is stupid and can’t think. If anything it shows that these things are weak performing the skilled labor that real humans do on the daily. Still not ideal, mind you because it still is a problem that people might rely on these things to read and understand code. It’s good that Linus had to fix the problem personally rather than have the unthinking LLM do it for him. Reporting on this correctly is important, as it lends credibility to the anti-LLM cause.

  • schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works
    0·
    1 day ago

    Well, what exactly did the AI do?

    If Linus said, “fix the kernel” and the LLM generated 1,000 lines of code that he dropped in, saw it was working, and called it a day, then that would be a problem.

    If Linux said, “Where is the problem?” and LLM told him and then he fixed it himself, that’s not a problem.

    I don´t have a problem with LLM even generating code, I have a problem with programmers not understanding their craft and publishing code they don’t fully understand.

    The problem is that practically you need to take a hard line because how are you supposed whether something is unexamined slop or if it’s been fully understood by a human? The only way a human understood is to be sure a human wrote it, so blanket generative AI bans make sense.