AI code bans may be impossible to enforce in the first place
I hate this attitude that if a rule or standard can’t be enforced perfectly, we shouldn’t strive for it. We can’t (reasonably) run an OS free of proprietary software, does that mean the free software movement should just give up?
I think one way is to make people realize that there is a concept in copyright called Threshold of Originality, meaning that because machine generated output in itself is not creative work, it’s not copyrightable. You can do literally anything with it, the licenses attached don’t matter. The GPL is not enforceable and no proprietary EULA is enforceable.
The entire point of GPL is to forcefully extract copyright out of the code in the first place.
No? The point of the GPL is to leverage such a copyright.
It’s called “copyleft” for a reason.
The reason is that it’s based in copyright law but uses it for the community instead of the individual. Without copyright, copyleft has no power.
I have many problems with copyright as it’s currently implemented, but with copyleft it usefully creates a social contract: if you want to be involved for the benefits, you must also uphold the rule of contributing back.
“People are going to murder anyway, so why even make murder illegal?”
You are correct, you should make rules even understanding that they will be broken by some.
Yes, debugging with an LLM is absolutely as bad as murder. Probably worse! \s
Not even remotely what I suggested.
They can only make fallacies to defend themselves.
LLM code can cause deaths (i.e. in hospital software), or otherwise great human or material loses (i.e., bank software or a shelter’s software), or even cultural loses (it actually does them right now, but you can also think about i.e. a museum software).
You can enforce consequences for murder. You can investigate and differentiate a murder from an accidental death. Don’t be disingenuous.
A death is a death.
I can quote from memory a case in my country, in the 80’s, where a man assaulted a couple, killed the woman and was about to kill the man.
The killer got tackled and beat to death by the widower. The sole survivor was sent to trial for murder regardless being under mortal peril.
Got acquited on the appeal. First instance deemed it an excessive act, regardless self defence.
I hate this attitude that if a rule or standard can’t be enforced perfectly, we shouldn’t strive for it.
“Murder bans may be impossible to enforce in the first place”
But they aren’t impossible to enforce and you know that.
That’s… the joke. The original proposition was that AI code bans can’t be enforced, a thought which I was leading ad absurdum.
I think of it like age verification. Slipperly slope to a proprietary kernel-level “security compliance module” on all devices, aka the end of general computation.
This isn’t a case where something can’t be enforced perfectly, it is a case of something that can’t be enforced at all going into the future. Every tool that can reliably detect LLM code is at the same time the tool used for adversarial training, making the generated code look more and more human. We are already at the point where for plain english the false positives and false negatives go through the roof, making these tools very unreliable and when applied automatically a liability. Code is a lot more formalized, with a lot less personal variance (spelling, vocabulary and grammar are basically fixed - only the used logic and how it is implemented is variable), making detection harder by default than in natural languages.
If LLM code can’t be detected anymore by automated means - and that state of things is approaching fast - then any policy about allowing or restricting LLM code is not worth the paper you would use to print it out. But that’s not so much of a problem. The more important policy to set, that can also be enforced, is that everyone submitting code has to take personal responsibility regarding the quality of the submission. Delivering bad code - when not happening while training to become a better coder and looking for feedback - has to lead to consequences based on the seriousness of the case and if it’s a repeat offender. Anyone using an LLM to spit out bullshit LQ code will run into that kind of rule very fast.
I disagree completely, for example Linus here has demonstrated he’s a slopper so we could easily remove him from any position to contribute to other projects. Bam. Enforced.
Do you really think that Torvalds would submit code that is not up to spec? He’s the most anal person regarding quality of code i know of - removing him from a project would not be a positive thing. He actually embodies the mentality of taking responsibility for code you provide; I am pretty sure he would stop coding for OSS projects before betraying that concept. We need more coders like him that take pride and responsibility for their code, not put up artifical barriers because of the tools someone uses.
Yeah well Hulk Hogan seemed cool in the 90s, but people change. Sloppers produce slop at the cost of quality, at the cost of the environment, at the cost of freedom, and at the cost of the economy: they deserve no credibility.
All the costs you name are attached to OpenAI/Anthropic/Nvidia/Microsoft, not the technology. You can run local models, and noone except Sam Altman and Dario Amodei need that amount of datacenters, because if they stop building, these guys are finished. Instead of bashing the technology which has a lot of uses that don’t need the power of a small city, go bash the fucking end times capitalists in the US which are responsible for that shit.
The local models still burn power and consume training to produce slop, a negative is a negative, and adoption of the technology of OpenAI/Anthropic/Nvidia/Microsoft/ The Chinese Dictatorship is a bad look even if you’re only contributing to optics.
I hate this attitude that if a rule or standard can’t be enforced perfectly, we shouldn’t strive for it.
This is the entire basis for the War on (some) Drugs. Guess what? Drugs won.
Power is nothing without enforceability, and purposely implementing rules or laws that can’t be enforceable is a form of malice and discrimination through selective enforcement.
I’m very critical of AI, but complete bans on AI use are, at the moment, pretty much unenforcable. Not hard to enforce, not impossible to enforce 100%, but completely impossible to enforce in general. There currently is no reliable way to verify if and how much someone used AI, except maybe if you monitor people’s systems (and even with a totalitarian surveilence system, coders will probably be able to bypass it).
Obviously, if someone who has no clue about coding uses it to write the entire code, you notice. But that’s simply not how most coders use AI…
Edit: And additionally, mandating disclosure of AI can make sense, but it can also create the false assumption that codeers/code without any disclosure are verified to not use AI when coding when it simply cannot be verified. It depends entirely on the coder being honest and transperant about their use of AI. And given the passionate pushback, coders are definitely incentiviced to not disclose AI use.
So how would one enforce this?
It is not that it is very difficult, it is impossible.
Provenance has never been something you can guarantee with code in an open contribution model (which is not the only way of governing an open source project). For all you know the code could be copy and pasted from a proprietary codebase, or be the product of third party who’s work is being plagiarised by the submitter. A software project is ultimately a community and is build on trust and faith that people are acting in good faith. The kind of person who would deliberately (and gleefully as I’ve seen in some social media posts) go into a community and violate its stated values and standards, no matter how arbitrary and illegitimate they feel those are, has bigger character flaws to worry about than their reliance on stochastic parrots to write code.
‘No AI’ rules are ultimately about fostering certain community values and norms than guaranteeing no LLM code makes it in.
The sloppers are literally outing themselves, it’s not rocket science.
He’s just admitting the usage of LLMs. They can be powerful tools in the right hands, and he wouldn’t submit that code if he couldn’t take responsibility for it. The bullshit OpenAI ,Anthropic et al are pulling is not synonymous with the technology itself, which will survive those asshats.
I’m pretty sure there were people like you thinking about IDEs the same way.
Or using something else than vim for editing files.
Or replacing punch cards.
He’s just admitting the usage of LLMs.
And we’re saying we should ban people like that. And they made the insane claim that it wasn’t possible.
It isn’t possible. If you get society at a level of repressiveness that you want to have (you know who else only thinks in black and white terms?) they will simply not disclose it, leaving you with nothing to go on besides witch hunts like in the dark ages.
Deleted by moderator
Reported for the personal insult btw, this is not needed in any way or form.
Yes, they are disclosing it, and that’s a good thing for you! If you want to avoid products that use LLMs in their code, being informed is key. Increasing pressure on coders who are also under pressure to provide a service - especially if it is fucking unpaid like most FOSS projects - will only mean that they don’t disclose it anymore, because if they can increase their output (for instance by running unit tests or scan for issues) in the limited time they can provide, they will take that edge, people like you be damned. It’s only human.
Your way will only lead into a future where most coders use LLMs, and you are in the dark about it, leaving you without the option to choose.
“it’s impossible to ensure that no one pisses in the pool, therefore we’re allowing pissing into the pool now”
“we can’t 100% enforce that studenst don’t cheat on exams, so it’s not worth to take a stand against cheating”
AI code ban makes as much sense as code written in IDE ban. That’s why it is impossible to enforce. It makes no sense.
Me when I’m a logical fallacy
You’re getting a lot of down votes not for being wrong, but for being right.
No, he gets them for being wrong.
As another person stated in another comment, that’s a false equivalence fallacy, but not only that, it’s a false dilemma fallacy, and a strawman fallacy.
In his commit message:
[And this was a debug session from hell, enormously helped by an AI doing much of the grunt-work.
I’d like to call it my tireless helper, but the AI several times stated flat out that this was impossible and unsolvable and that we should just write a report about it.
I suspect those things have been trained by people who may not be quite as stubborn as I am.
But while the AI was ready to give up several times, it did keep adding debug code and analyzing it faithfully when I pushed. So credit where credit is due and I let the AI write the commit message above.
This is basically a one-liner fixing a bogus “round_up()” to a “round_down()”, but there were 24 patches adding more and more debug information to this, and 18 kernel boot to finally narrow it down to this. - Linus ]
Didn’t he state quite early on that LLMs were a good tool to spot bugs? Found this from 3 years ago: https://blog.mathieuacher.com/LinusTorvaldsLLM/
Hackers use LLMs to spot odd exploits so it makes sense developers use them too. The usage of LLMs in development likely won‘t make Linux better or safer overall, because bugs and exploits wouldn‘t have been found by either side without it in the first place. It‘s like pandora‘s box where Linus is kind of forced to use it. If that makes sense.
Like an accelerating arms race.
Yes, but this has always been the case before and after this phony “AI” bullshit.
He might consider himself forced to use it to find bugs. He wouldn’t be forced to use it to write the fix.
(Now you might say he wasn’t or isn’t, but even if that were true for the kernel at large this doesn’t seem to be: https://www.theregister.com/os-platforms/2026/08/10/linus-torvalds-says-ai-has-made-huge-linux-kernel-updates-the-new-normal/5285268 And this seems like mostly to be on Linus, for not stepping in here.)
Following the hacker arm race is a good point. But also the number of bugs is not a bottomless pit. If an LLM allows to find more, and hopefully the test and reviews are good enough to limit the new opportunities to introduce some from LLMs, it should reduce the overall number of bugs and make the software generally safer.
Whatever’s the outcome, the anthropomorphization in that message stinks 🤮
Dude, I’m not an AI zealot, but I anthropomorphize my socks.
Yeah but people aren’t having conversations with your socks thinking they actually are alive and your socks don’t then talk said people into suicide so I’m pretty sure it’s at least a little bit different.
Trying to avoid anthropomorphising something with which you interact via natural language is incredibly laborious, and achieves nothing.
Avoiding false statements achieves scientific accuracy and honest progress rather than grifting and bullshit.
And TBH it’s not at all difficult for me to distinguish between my computer and a human.
Silly humans, antropomorphizing everything. Say, what species are you?
That’s a core part of the grift. Even people who supposed hate “AI” still promote this kind of anthropomorphic disinformation. It’s rampant.
I like it.
Regardless of how he got there, this is a pretty obnoxious and useless commit message…
Seriously. You don’t need to outline your whole journey to finding the bug, commentary on the tools you used, and how it all made you feel, just what the problem was and how it was fixed. Put the rest in a blog post.
I’m glad Linus is pragmatic about this, ethical questions aside LLM’s are a highly valuable tool in software development and they are likely to continue to improve. Any engineer fighting the use of LLM’s will ultimately find that their peers are achieving more in a shorter time then they are. Open weight LLM’s have also come a long way and are already good enough for daily use.
ethical questions aside
And his here is the problem. Oh yeah lets just waive off the biggest critisicm on and issue of AI.
Hitler was a pretty neat guy, ethnic cleansing aside.
And before you say this, no, i am not comparing you to hitler, I’m only using an over the top example to hopefully make my point more clear.
I think the better analogy is, the advances in rocketry made under hitler were pretty neat and just because Hitler was an evil guy who did evil shit doesn’t mean we should have thrown that away. By all means stop giving money and influence to the big AI companies, but the advances made can still be repurposed.
Yes so of course my actual opinion is a little more nuanced than this. I absolutely see the uses of AI, I won’t deny that. I just fundamentally disagree with the way it is being used right now (by which I mean the gas-turbine-powered datacenters it requires, the noise pollution they create, the unethical/outright illegal acquiring of training data.
If you’re using a local model, whose training did not deprive actual people of huge amounts of water or electricity, and did not use stolen data, I’m all for it. But most people aren’t, they’re using ChatGPT or Gemini or whatever Microsoft is making.
Continuing your analogy, this would be like flying rockets manufactured by the third reich, not other companies using the same technologies.
Will the Tesla be the next Beetle?
“Ai is literally Hitler”
-fediverse user, 2026
I hope you’re joking, but I did explicitly state that was not my intention.
I’m only using an over the top example to hopefully make my point more clear.
If that’s the only example available that illustrates the point, then you have not spent enough time thinking through your idea.
Do better.
Do better.
lmao fuck off
Thanks for admitting you haven’t got a legitimate argument.
“I don’t like your example, give me a different one.”
“No.”
“Checkmate libtard. So much for the tolerant left.”
ROFL.
Thanks for admitting you have no idea what you’re talking about. Again.
Maybe you should fully read what you’re looking at before posting next time. I’m not the person you were whining to originally.
It’s a bad look when you can’t even tell who it is you’re talking to. Really makes it seem like you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Wow, just speedrunning Godwin’s Law, aren’t we?
I guess I’m going to go back to work and talk to my five LLM sessions that are working on different tickets.
Wasting all that extra water will certainly teach him a lesson.
Yeah, ethical, environmental, legal and fuck the consumer memory questions aside.
That’s every corp and government in existence.
I remember people being angry at IDEs for making programming too easy and belittling code colourization as for children.
There will always be a crowd that wants everything to stay the way they know it.
Some people still think that digital artists aren’t real artists.
deleted by creator
Conservatives.
Any engineer fighting the use of LLM’s will ultimately find that their peers are achieving more in a shorter time then they are.
How do you measure that?
I am asking because I tried all the AI coding tools (copilot, cursor, claude code, etc.), even the paid versions, to find the utopia that doubles my productivity where lots of people are talking about. But everytime I find they take more time to generate code than me typing it, they rarely get things right the first time, they produce way more code than needed (which is much more to reason about) and all in all it takes longer to achieve something using “AI” instead of doing it on my own.
The worst results are the ones that seem to be correct, but can only be found incorrect on closer inspection. For instances, a part of my job is to write data collection applications for sensors; those sensors come with a datasheet (usually 100 to 200 pages) that explain how to “talk” to the sensor. Sounds perfect for an LLM - throw the datasheet in, get a small C application out. But either I get something that does not even compile, or something that seems to collect data, but configures the sensor completely wrong. Debugging that takes more time than just working through the datasheet myself and program it myself.
Well that’s because copilot and cursor are pure shit, and claude code is overpriced and over rated.
TBH I have been hopping between agent frameworks, but mostly I use locally run Qwen or Deepseek to draft individual function blocks or brainstorm in a notepad interface:
https://github.com/lmg-anon/mikupad
And manually insert them as I review the code… I like my stuff uncomplicated and unobstructed.
If I were to pick an API provider today, I’d buy one year of Xiaomi MiMo, because it is dirt cheap and good enough. GLM and Deepseek are great, but more expensive since they are popular now.
Yeah, my work is forcing us to use Claude for everything now. More than ever, I’m convinced that using AI is slower and worse than me just doing it by hand.
UNLESS, if I blindly accept the output, then Claude is faster. Sure, I can close the ticket in 15 minutes. Is it right? Idk. Is it good? Idk. Does it have bugs? Idk. Did it make shit up? Idk. Did anything even get compiled or tested? Idk. The ticket is closed though and that’s all that matters, apparently.
No, pragmatically speaking, LLMs and in general AI will only make code worse each day.
find that their peers are achieving more in a shorter time then they are
I’ve been reading this for 3 years and all I’ve seen so far is my peers making more work for me by going on wild goose chases and making me wade through slop. I do believe there are ways to use it responsibly and productively but that is definitely not what is happening on average.
I don’t understand why so many people decided to take “LLMs increase productivity” as an axiom instead of using their fucking eyes and looking at what is happening around them.
I think most misplaced critic comes from people not understanding or knowing the different types of AI. Some even hate all types of intelligence it seems.
Chess engines have been using AI, specifically, neural networks, for years before ChatGPT or other LLMs. Nobody complained.
Chess engines didn’t require data centers that guzzle water and spit out pollution like an 18th century factory.
It’s all about scale, there aren’t billions of chess engine users.
They did, just on a smaller scale, and they used all games ever played by high-level players. LLMs and image generators were stealing data years before they became viable. And nobody gave a shit.
Let’s not pretend most people give a shit about ethics or the environment. Those were impacted long before AI became viable in any way. People hate on AI because it’s affecting everyday prices and employment. Ethics and environment are just convenient shiny arguments few actually stand behind.
If tomorrow billionaires turned around and said “actually, here’s UBI for everyone, provided by AI!”, most people would be cheering on intellectual theft and destruction of this earth, and call everyone still against it selfish and regressive.
Ethics and environmental destruction are “convenient shiny arguments”?? Go fuck yourself you delusional shill. Praying for a billionaire saviour while gagging on their boots, fuck you.
Here we go again!
You conflate one type of AI with all the other ones. Call it LLM or generative AI.
I programmed AI 20 years ago, it still is AI but doesn’t use datacenters. I programmed deep neural networks ten years ago, it did not use datacenters either.
And that’s why no one is opposed to those.
You didn’t pirate the collective works of humanity to train on, while under a society that requires intellectual property rights to ensure those creators are compensated, in order to undercut them twice (once to train and once to replace them)
You didn’t pollute the sky, dry the soil, bulldoze people’s homes to make your chessbot.
You didn’t corner the market on components to brute force the solution to declare yourself computer god, where everyone must come to you for compute.
Gen AI seeks to replace humans and it’s not even sentient. I don’t give a single fuck how useful a fancy algorithm is, it’s not ok with me if it’s designed to destroy my life.
No but we did all that for Taylor swift and Walmart. Hopefully you don’t do anything with any major brands at all.
Well do the work and call it for what it is, not just “AI”.
Generative AI.
LLM
Is it truly that hard?
I mean you seem to want to, and thus we can have a discussion about it, which I favour instead of having people just being generally angry it seems.
The day when it doesn’t crush the environment, should we use gen AI to help us in our daily lives? Or should we not? Is there something good in it? Or isn’t it? I’d love seing constructive discussions but they just get globbed by people thinking with their gut it seems. Like if you don’t hate “AI” then you’re pro genocide.
Sorry for the rant!
The day when it doesn’t crush the environment
Why should we indulge your hypothetical? They’re actively building fossil fuel powered data centers so it’s not even moving in that direction.
And most tech literate people that are anti-genAI would also prefer if it didn’t completely usurp the term AI or that everything historically called ML got also got sucked in. You’re acting like anti people made that happen but it was the boosters and now AI=chatgpt is in the common lexicon. Nitpicking their language when you obviously know damn well what they mean is just silly.
What are you talking about?
Chess using neural nets didn’t happen until around 2017 with Alpha Zero, based on Google DeepMind.
Ie… Two years after OpenAI was founded. ChatGPT is part of the exact same tech rush.
Nobody complained because chess is harmless, ChatGPT is not 🤷
This will also be quite the test for the Lemmy slopwarriors
Oh, please… is it still a text generator, or is it already a religion?
Didn’t you love T9 back in the days?
I’m just a movement generator.
Saying “it’s a text generator” cannot be the full force of your criticism, if the text it generates is incredibly useful. What could AI be on a screen if not a text generator?
Your views have got to be formed by WHAT text is generated given that AI cannot express itself through any other channel than text.
If you can give AI a deeply complex code base and ask it to find the likely cause of an obscure bug, and the solution is right, then you’ll have to acknowledge that some form of reasoning is going on, no?
And given that no other system has previously enabled this form of reasoning, it seems a shame to judge AI on semantics, rather than usefulness.
If you can give AI a deeply complex code base and ask it to find the likely cause of an obscure bug, and the solution is right, then you’ll have to acknowledge that some form of reasoning is going on, no?
Absolutely not. LLMs are just prediction engines for words.
If a LLM has the right answer, it only means that the model had the correct training data for your issue. Nothing more.
That is absolutely not how it works at all
Uh huh, and how does it work?
What do you mean? That’s exactly how LLMs work. That’s why they “hallucinate”.
No they hallucinate because they lose context but are tasked to answer anyways. They also don’t really lose context as much as they did a year ago.
Their training data has nothing to do with it unless you’re using a local one without web access.
Saying “it’s a text generator” cannot be the full force of your criticism,
That is no criticism, just a statement.
My criticism goes to people who assign some metaphysical meaning to AI, or want to treat all it’s output like a contagious pest.
It can’t reason. It doesn’t think. It makes shit up as it was trained to do. It can sort of detect patterns and make a guess about what response would get it the highest score, but it’s so error-prone that a human has to verify the output anyway. It’s difficult to tell whether the perceived benefits outweigh the costs. There are many different types of LLMs and use cases.
As a person who values life and our environment, I’d rather not participate in the sloppification of our world. As a Linux user, I am wary of vibe coded flaws slipping under the radar and screwing up my system.
I have to verify the output of what humans generate, too. I’m constantly looking at the source of claims. The AI is no different and it’s not nearly as wrong as a Person is.
I’m just a movement generator.
Which is way more complex than just predicting text, because you have to predict physics and all that stuff. There is a reason most robots controlled by neural nets have failed hilariously so far.
then you’ll have to acknowledge that some form of reasoning is going on, no?
By that logic you could say a compiler is reasoning. But the reasoning displayed was happening when the compiler (or LLM training material respectively) was written.
You are on Lemmy so defending AI use will net you down votes. I am an anti-AI person, practically, but you make a very fair and objective point. 👍 I up vote you, not because I agree with AI use but because this is a proper point to make in a proper discussion, which is what this place should be about.
Kudos.
If the model is adequately FOSS, i.e. open weights, and can run on a single consumer GPU (or NPU), and the “author” (quotations because I’m personally undecided if one can claim code generated by an aforementioned model is theirs) understands it, then I really don’t see what the problem is…
Personally I have nothing against SLMs/LLMs as a technologically, to me my grievances against ChatGPT or Claude are mostly about their environmental impacts and selling us back our own art, also keeping knowledge behind a for-profit black-box - if those aren’t appropriate for a specific model, then I say using that model is fair, and good for productivity.
I’d take a model whose training data is open source and legitimately obtained. The only ones I know about are Apertus and OLMo, and they aren’t really competitive.
Unfortunately not yet, no, true FOSS models are likely many years away, but I would argue that that follows typical FOSS lifecycles. Emerging technology is typically outperformed by proprietary endeavors, which creates an audience, and then that audience undertakes a FOSS implementation that initially underperforms, then just about competes, then eventually overtakes (i.e, GNU/Linux).
The problem with open weight models is that they are still hard to deploy. For DeepSeek for example you require NVIDIA HGX B200, these things are expensive.
Yes, unfortunately they are, and I do think efficiency is going to be a significant research front for open-weight models. The nature of this topic is highly speculative as our compute capabilities have only recently reached what is required to consider running generative AI models, what we have today are very crude first implementations of what I personally believe will become an everyday tool for developers, and more.
And we have seen this, there are models now capable of running on an individual’s hardware (and not particularly expensive hardware either) that can outperform what ChatGPT initially launched with.
Seems like an AI apologists article. Sounds a bit like “bans are hard so why even bother.”
No, the alternatives exist and people can choose them where able: https://codeberg.org/brib/slopfree-software-index Sure, not all things are available AI free, e.g. there’s no Linux kernel (NetBSD doesn’t run on as much hardware), but that doesn’t mean there’s no point in choosing no AI software where possible, if you care about it.
The enforceability part seems the most apologist to me. You never could really know if some contributor wasn’t copying leaked Windows XP code into your FOSS project. If you trust contributors that little, don’t let them contribute.
There’s a difference between using a tool as a knowledgeable professional, and using a tool as a novice or a member of the general public: the professional can likely tell when the answer an AI gives is wrong.
AI is a tool that can be useful sometimes.
Ayup, i’ve literally thrown massive logs into an llm and “find the errors” to track down a complex issue. They’re very good paper sorters
I suppose Microslop aren’t actually professionals anymore.
I can live with that
I can stand AI as long as the code is reviewed line-by-line by a human. The only problem I have aside from that is that I wonder if code generated by an AI can validly be placed under an open source licence instead of being public domain. Didn’t a court rule that you couldn’t copyright generated code?
Good point. Not sure what they’re gonna do about that.
lol the cope
And the bitterness?
I don’t support what the big corpos are doing, but you’re straight up denying that a hammer is a tool.
no i mean people coping that now their hero linus used AI they aren’t calling for him to be shunned from the linux community.
Antoine’s argument is still very naive and short sighted.
Only because some corporations are linked to fascism, does not make the technology inherently fascist.
If these links are an issue, we should also all stop using Microsoft and Google, because they offer Isreael computing power, and thus every service is now supporting genocide. So if you are that user, all fine, enjoy an off-grid life. But don’t pretend to be better, if you still rely on those companies in the first place.
I agree that the corpos being linked to fascism doesn’t make the technology fascist, but plenty of people are switching from MS and Google for that among other reasons. Acting like any interaction with these companies is just as bad as going all in is completely incorrect. All small acts of resistance add up and are important, even if you can’t totally avoid a company that is causing harm. Taking a bus is not as harmful as driving a car just because they both use fossil fuels.
there are robust anti Microsoft and anti Google movements getting more and more mainstream over time. there are plenty of great alternatives to MS and Google software and services. Linux and FOSS as a whole is benefiting immensely from anti Microsoft sentiment right now. We can and should boycott these two terrible companies
“Avoiding fascist-supporting companies is inconvenient” is a poor excuse, especially when it’s so easy to degoogle compared to 10 years ago.
Guess it’s finally time to go all in on FreeBSD
FreeBSD is also slopped, sadly. https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/will-freebsd-adopt-a-no-ai-policy-or-such.100101/
why not a genuine piece of pre-AI coding art like Windows Vista, Windows ME or the absolute pinacle of software: Slackware 9.1 before they switched to the awful X.org server from the beautiful XFree86?
Fuck that, I’m going back to DOS.
I’m going back to AmigaDOS.
FreeDOS actually does have an anti AI policy, at least when it comes to code commits: https://www.freedos.org/about/ai/ So you might be onto something here!
Finally!
it’s the only way to be pure!
Maybe get an M2-series Mac and go all-in on Asahi Linux?
Or live the 90s dream with Haiku OS (they just released beta 6)?
The “never ai” list is getting pretty short
Maybe get an M2-series Mac and go all-in on Asahi Linux?
That’s still Linux with Torvalds-approved LLM generated code. If you care about avoiding LLM code, all Linux is now poisoned.
If you care about avoiding LLM code, all Linux is now poisoned.
How do you figure that?
Also, Torvalds isn’t reviewing every PR sitting there like, “yes how delicious this AI generated code is! I approve!” Believe it or not, tens of thousands of people run the Linux foundation project, not just him.
And let’s keep our heads squarely on our necks here, and remember what Torvalds actually said:
How do you figure that?
It’s literally spelled out in the submitted article as well as https://www.xda-developers.com/linus-torvalds-will-loudly-ignore-anyone-criticising-ai-code-in-linux-fork-it-or-just-walk-away/ which is prominently linked from that article. Read first, comment later, don’t downvote others just because you are wrong.
That just explains Torval’s attitude, which I just explained to you first (by the way) but it doesn’t explain your statement that “all of Linux is now poisoned“.
That’s gonna require a substantial amount more proof than a philosophical position taken by Linus Torvalds
(to be clear: I’m pretty anti AI myself, and I don’t agree with Torvalds position, and I’m definitely not arguing in Support of it)
That’s gonna require a substantial amount more proof than a philosophical position taken by Linus Torvalds
“Linus Torvalds used AI to fix a Linux bug” <-- literally spelled out in the headline.
1600 commits contain the word “claude” alone: https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Atorvalds%2Flinux+claude&type=commits
It’s so easy to find out, yet you insist that you are right. Hilarious.
The only thing that’s “hilarious“ here is how you’ve interpreted one thing to fit into your perception of another.
On the other hand, I find it rather sad, especially how, in a single sentence, you seem to see several things that just… aren’t there….
And I get the argument that you’re trying to make, but you’re making it very badly.
We need to finish Hurd.
We
Patches welcome
If you really think that FreeBSD whose developers often use Macs on desktop is any different, think again. Maybe OpenBSD but certainly not FreeBSD.
I daily drive OpenBSD, I find it much better than my experience with FreeBSD. OpenBSD I feel has better wifi support, better VM support, and I found more of my devices worked on OpenBSD as opposed to FreeBSD (pair of USB Headphones I had just absolutely WOULD NOT work on FreeBSD, on OpenBSD it wasn’t an issue)
That being said OpenBSD’s policy on AI isn’t exactly clear yet. NetBSD however has straight up said no to AI.
The BSD’s are good, they’ve come a long way, but you can’t go into them thinking you’ll get a similar Linux up to date experience. the BSD’s are still a few years behind but if you’re going to try and make a switch I would suggest NetBSD or OpenBSD over FreeBSD. I might give NetBSD another go as I think I gave up on it last time because the install process annoyed me.
the BSD’s are still a few years behind
As long as many BSD developers (especial at FreeBSD, I think it’s a lesser degree with Net and Open) are Mac users who actively reject using any FOSS BSD on desktops/notebooks and only care about contributing regarding server stuff, this won’t change.
why not go full linux nutter and create TempleOS 2.0 ?
only hand made code that you yourself wrote, it’s the only way to be sure!
Open Source and git mean this is basically a non issue. It’s just effort to manage it again.
People can fork a pre… 2020? version if they insist and if it’s enough people who want that, they can group up again and form a new community.
The problem AI slop coding is mostly the untested bullshit that causes problems. That’s not going to happen because I believe that a good bunch of stuff is thoroughly tested now, and also, this is maintainers doing it. If it doesn’t work, it’s their project, their career and their success on the line. And again, the worst possible outcome is that people have to roll back to an older version.
The code we use is not art the same way that gen-ai replaces “real artists”. I agree with opposing that tech in that area, and I agree with rejecting unchecked, untested, hallucinated nonsense in coding too, especially when it promises new features in corpo software that you are forced to use, and then have that fail on you.
But there will be a very normal selection process happening. If the process doesn’t work, the software will fail and lose users.
I fully support the people who absolutely reject it though, that means diversity of approaches and that’s good.
I keep seeing headlines like this, and of course conveniently leaving out how Torvalds chewed people out for vibe coding.
Torvalds didn’t vibe code away the Linux bug. He actually knows what he’s doing.
Yeah he has said many times the submitter of the code is the one responsible for knowing how it works. That’s not the only issue with LLMs though. Stolen intellectual property and the larger environmental impact that the data centers required to run them is having are just a couple more.
I have a feeling that in order to achieve using deep learning (because let’s face it; it’s not AI) as a programming assistant, AI companies didn’t need to do half the shit they’ve done.
The resources being outright burnt on their endeavours haven’t served any useful purpose. You don’t need data centres covering the globe and to destroy thousands of rare books to assist with code, or find cancer in a scan.
Oh I mostly blame capitalism and the shitty tech bro CEOs.
Ya but the general hysteria is that any AI use is bad and that we can only trust this AI use because its from Linus. I’ve used AI successfully for debugging and learning new code bases and patches and I’ve been told I’m wrong for doing so.
Well, so far Linus is the only person in the world, it seems, that is using AI as a tool instead of a crutch. So I agree with that sentiment.
And what’s thw relation to the OP, or the comment you’re replying to? Are you understanding the result of what AI is giving you? Because thw comment states that this is not vibing because Linus owns the change, understands it.
NetBSD banned submitting “Tainted Code” in their commit guidelines…
https://www.netbsd.org/developers/commit-guidelines.html
May be time to dump Linux, Linus.
Still looks like they allow it as long as it gets approval by the core team. Not saying I agree with that choice, but there’s still a very real chance LLM-generated code makes it into NetBSD.
Code generated by a large language model or similar technology, such as GitHub/Microsoft’s Copilot, OpenAI’s ChatGPT, or Facebook/Meta’s Code Llama, is presumed to be tainted code, and must not be committed without prior written approval by core.
Using AI is not the same as vibe coding.
Asking AI to write a piece of code and then read it, understand and use, is a very reasonable use case.
Yeah, and Torvalds using generative AI to write code is not the same as Bobby LinkedIn telling us he’s coding his third app this week.
I wonder how long before he gets comfy relying on it and something really shitty slips in.
Dude merges in code into the kernel originating from how many thousands of developers from around the world?
Read the LKML if you think he’s a guy that’s prone to getting comfy with merging in sub-par code.
oh he’s quick to put the brakes on other PR’s including slop code.
which makes me wonder how long until he’s comfy and forgets sometimes the slop comes from inside the building lol.
You assume humans don’t ever write sloppy code and Linux Torvalds has never before encountered someone wanting to merge in sloppy code before. If in decades he hasn’t gotten comfy with sloppy code written by humans, why would he suddenly be merging in sloppy code written by an AI? He’s never been worried about hurting the feelings of a human that’s writing sloppy, do you suppose he’s going to develop empathy for an LLM that’s writing sloppy code?
The people that go all in on vibe coding are people that aren’t very good programmers to begin with. They don’t really understand how to write code and then suddenly they can make things work quickly. Well sort of work. At least work about as well as they could with their limited skills.
People that are actually good at programming know what good code is. After decades of working with code and knowing what it’s supposed to be, you don’t suddenly become a vibe coder saying eh, it kind of works, good enough, ship it. Its the people that were never able to write high quality code to begin with that do that. It can do the job of a lazy programmer that has a low standard of quality. For a skilled developer, it can sometimes save on typing on some simple tasks, and a good developer knows when it did something wrong and be all Thanos and say “fine, I’ll do it myself”.
You assume humans don’t ever write sloppy code and Linux Torvalds has never before encountered someone wanting to merge in sloppy code before.
damn dude, did you completely fail reading and comprehension? because you’re replying to a link to me pointing that exact fuckin thing out.
maybe slow down and try harder.
like, it’s in the link title text, right there.
People that are actually good at programming know what good code is.
as long as they stay proficient. but prolonged exposure to AI slop tends to have a damaging effect - https://thenewstack.io/karpathy-says-developers-have-ai-psychosis-everyone-else-is-next/
so I stick with my premise: how long before it has an effect on him?
Do you completely fail at critical thinking? I’ll slow it down so you can understand:
-
Linus sees sloppy code written by a human
-
Linus sees sloppy code written by an AI
Why did #1 not corrupt him have decades, but #2 definitely will? There is no reason, sloppy code is sloppy code whether written by a human or written by an AI.
You’re equating shitty developers becoming vibe coders with a skilled software engineer using a tool. I think you just don’t know the difference between a junior developer and a senior software engineer. Maybe you just don’t have any experience in software development and are just reading articles on random websites.
just gonna end this pointless chat here:
yeah it’s not gonna lead to any problems lol. meanwhile reality is disagreeing. I get it, you’re a slopfan, so this pointless you’re not going to listen / try to understand, but for the rest of the audience, here’s some other views:
https://thenewstack.io/karpathy-says-developers-have-ai-psychosis-everyone-else-is-next/
https://aiforautomation.io/news/2026-05-17-ai-psychosis-hacker-news-1979-developers-vote
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/urban-survival/202507/the-emerging-problem-of-ai-psychosis
https://therenegadecoder.com/blog/why-generative-ai-makes-the-future-of-software-development-worse/
https://www.slashgear.com/1970560/ai-coding-problems-security-risks/
https://andrewjcode.substack.com/p/ai-is-writing-terrible-code
https://letsdatascience.com/blog/developers-thought-ai-made-them-faster-the-data-said-otherwise
-
Yep, and even more important are the cases where coding models are used outside of actually producing code. Unit tests, red teaming, bug hunting and so on are all areas where LLMs can reduce the load on an experienced coder, allowing him to concentrate on the meaty stuff. Blindly being against the technology itself because big tech currently consists of a bunch of asshats is not a mature stance.
Blindly being against the technology itself because big tech currently consists of a bunch of asshats is not a mature stance.
yeah it’s not gonna lead to any problems lol. meanwhile reality is disagreeing. I get it, you’re a slopfan, so this pointless you’re not going to listen / try to understand, but for the rest of the audience, here’s some other views:
https://thenewstack.io/karpathy-says-developers-have-ai-psychosis-everyone-else-is-next/
https://aiforautomation.io/news/2026-05-17-ai-psychosis-hacker-news-1979-developers-vote
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/urban-survival/202507/the-emerging-problem-of-ai-psychosis
https://therenegadecoder.com/blog/why-generative-ai-makes-the-future-of-software-development-worse/
https://www.slashgear.com/1970560/ai-coding-problems-security-risks/
https://andrewjcode.substack.com/p/ai-is-writing-terrible-code
https://letsdatascience.com/blog/developers-thought-ai-made-them-faster-the-data-said-otherwise
I am not a “slopfan”. I do not use any of the techbros services, and never have outside of a few test runs in 2022 to see what it can do.
I only use local models running on my own hardware, and only to automate tasks that would take ages by hand (e.g. creating summaries about gameplay and features of my game collection from the game stores websites, helping me with RegEx or quickly creating one-shot python scripts for specific purposes - i am a terrible coder), or that make interacting with large technical documents easier (e.g. mainboard manuals). I have dabbled a bit with image generation, but it isn’t really interesting for me.
But denying that the technology can reduce workload on coders even when not generating code (e.g. unit tests, red teaming, reverse engineering) is immature. These tasks are also much less prone to cause AI psychosis, because i do not care about “chatting” with these models.
What was that random desktop image in the middle of the article for? It’s that the author’s? What kind of impression did he expect his elf babe wallpaper to convey?
