190
Linus Torvalds used AI to fix a Linux bug, and now LLM critics on Linux face an uncomfortable choice
(www.xda-developers.com)
this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2026
190 points (92.8% liked)
Technology
87680 readers
3326 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
not to be an AI bootlicker, but i don't get why people treat AI-generated code like it's the Plague 2. it's not; all code is constrained by the programming language, and so it either implements the feature correctly... or it doesn't. yes, human review is undeniably important, but other than that, AI-generated code and human code is still all logic at the end of the day
Over the past 5 years specifically, nearly every single piece of software I use from OS, to apps, to even legacy programs I trusted for decades have started to produce more bugs, are less stable, and less reliable.
At the same time, AI has been forced on people and AI using devs are proliferating while we still lack an understanding of AIs cognitive affects on us.
What exactly am I supposed to think? That all the programmers pushing AI on me like Crypto Bros while their programs work worse are smart, well intentioned people?
You can say whatever you want, I use the software, shits gotten absolutely terrible lately, and it's not just the purposefully enshitified software either.
because it's a perfect storm. The way it's being managed by businesses is causing :
So, the tool is getting a bad rep. never mind that for over a decade, machine learning was something that was tinkered away and thought of as "one day this is going to be amazing", now it's being wielded by assholes trying to be TRILLIONAIRES and people are losing their jobs, access to technology, political and environmental collapse.
To top it off, before you could contextualise ML in statistics and say "it's a work in progress, some things are not quite right" but now you have ads saying "Replace your humans with our AI/Robots" as if it's 100% reliable, a drop in replacement and not going to provide any social ills.
Exactly. The concept of an LLM is perfectly fine, we've had its precursors like markov chains and neural nets for decades, the issue is how their being created and used these days, particularly the scale of it. LLMs are the shiny new toy the way blockchains were previously, so all the tech bros and utterly clueless CEOs are rushing out to embrace the hot new thing and demand it be shoved into every nook and crany because they think if they don't they might not make every last cent they possibly might.
Oh. No. I'm sorry, unrelated to the ai debate, but I have to correct this. Software architecture is intensely not raw logic sequences like you learn in uni. Everything before compilation is cooperative abstract modeling that does not necessarily impose any change at all in the binary. You are essentially teaching laymen that all programming languages for the same plattform are a creative choice, that extensibility, robustness, scaling or maintenance are just completely imagined fields of research. I'm sorry but that statement is complete nonsense misinformation. The binary itself, while it's a stretch; sure, in a way it can be considered only logic. From a certain angle. But that viewpoint is actively unhelpful for understanding what code is. The product is always so much more than the machine code. Consider writing raw arm instructions vs the obfuscated js that our engines churns through that decides most of our executing logic. All that is architecture and affects output only through the lens of the machine code. You have to enter the "code“ any time anything breaks, or is updated, if even a single thing is not as expected, or if you wanted to iterate on the program, or collaborate, you have to move into abstract land and then the architecture matters. The term spaghetti code does not mean that the logic is messy. The compiler wil usually remove most such mistakes. Instead the whole architecture, the "blueprint" the "workbench" is the magic of code, even if it is often obscure for the user is much more important for their experience than the raw logic.
I think the people most extreme about it haven't done much development.
Or they have, professionally, and associate it with very real AI psychosis at work.
Or they're in school and see LLMs ruining the student body, as we've seen some in other Lemmy posts.
It all comes down to ethical tool sourcing, and using those tools in moderation, responsibly. Like all sorts of other automation/technology that's popped up in programming...
But I guess I'm saying I can sympathize with absolute "no-LLM-code" positions, too. The way true vibe-coding has been peddled to the public really has done tremendous damage, and honestly the space deserves the negative attention its getting, and then some.
The fact of the matter is as an AI hater I do actually trust AI generated code if run through the right people. I just don't know when the people I trust will trust the AI more than themselves, and that's part of the worry. Are they going to be as diligent on checking their AIs bug fix #125 if the first 124 were perfect? Maybe, maybe not. I certainly am not trusting AI code in the hands of vibe coders who have no idea what they're doing and are only contributing to a project because it happens to allow AI contributions.
I also just don't like LLMs in general, the way they collected data, the way they were trained on data, the way they are affecting communities across the globe, and the harm the people at the top of these companies are doing, not to mention the job loss which is really not a main concern of mine. I don't like the idea of people using tools that are so harmful if it can be avoided.
I'd wager people like linux devs will learn exactly how unreliable they are, quickly, once they start using them. Its kind of impossible to miss.
There's a chance some devs succumb to AI psychosis, but that's why these large open source projects are institutionalized. No one person can ruin them, by design.
As for ethics, I think the open weights LLMs are far more ethical, albeit far from perfect. They're trained modestly, presented as tools, apache licensed, self host able, more efficient to run, and good enough; people just need to know they exist as an alternative.
Open weight LLMs are not trained any differently than all the others. They just publish the weights. It's still massive theft run through a data center.
There is no (good) coding LLM trained ethically because securing rights to the amount of code and text required has not been attempted and is likely not possible. The best you can do is a company who hid a "by using this service you give us rights to use your code/writing to train our LLM" into a six page EULA no one reads and that's just a different kind of unethical.
Some models like Nemotron use open datasets, and utilize hardware more efficiently than OpenAI and such.
Its (IMO) also quite different when the weights are Apache licensed. If absolutely zero profit is involved, that gets close to the "fair use" umbrella, IMO, like other noncommercial derivative works of restrictively licensed content (fanfics/fanart).
You are not wrong about the closed datasets though, for the vast majority of LLMs. Lord knows what the Chinese trainers or OpenAI use to train...
But anything truly "open weights" is still a different order of magnitude in the ethics scale, IMO. I view the primary issue to be profiting off the scraping and training; take that away, and its not nearly as egregious.
Almost everybody that brings up ethical LLMs is full of shit because they point to them existing as a defense then turn around and use claude.
I don't. I've never had an OpenAI or Claude subscription. Basically the only thing I've used Claude API for is science/testing when comparing it to an open weights model, and I haven't done that in some time.
I've never felt a need to, either.
Not that Im perfectly innocent or anything. Or that you're wrong. People DO exactly this, and it makes me scratch my head.
It's just another part of the grift. The so-called "resistance" actually promotes the Big Lai that "AI" exists.