this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2026
544 points (97.7% liked)
Linux
15106 readers
415 users here now
A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)
Also, check out:
Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP
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
Honestly, there are a few thoughts about this (and yes, some will be unpopular what I say).
I'd argue it isn't actually a good thing necessarily to ban using it as a tool entirely from senior devs.
The biggest issue at the moment are arrogant junior cryptobros who are too lazy to learn to code, and just want to throw money at the issue. And that wastes everyone's time.
What we really need is a ethical AI model that only uses completely open code, pays people for their code (instead of just stealing it). and a way to ensure it is only used by developers who can use it properly. Ideally, only allow that code to be used for open source too
I actually wouldn't want to see Gnome/System76 completely ban it. What I would want to see is for it to be permitted for approved devs with VERY specific guidelines dictating how it can be used.
As a retired senior programmer, I would have loved to use LLMs in the past for very specific things. I wouldn't use it every day, but like every couple of months I had to do a massive refactor that took weeks to complete. I usually ended up writing codemod and just painfully changing tens of thousands of lines of code. Would be cool to just say "hey LLM, see how I did this one? Do the same thing everywhere else you find it. If you encounter anything that's too different from my template just leave it for me to review"
So I had a huge refactor and thought "Ok, this should be right up GenAI alley". And in fact took your very approach of giving an example for a few and said "go at it".
To my surprise, it actually did it pretty poorly, would not work, when it would have worked, dire performance implications. Failing to address things that technically would survive the rework functionally intact, but now a very bad way of doing things in new context. Problems exacerbated is that when I'm reviewing code, I tend to have a more optimistic assumption of the code than when I'm writing and second guessing myself. So it's all the more annoying to read code I didn't write screw up so much.
I will say it does a pretty good job of boilerplate heavy crap. If I'm going to want to make Go structs from JSON, I can just feed a sample and the very tedious work of making the sometimes maddening tedius Go structs gets chewed through pretty nicely.
Yeah I once tried to use it to write complex SQL and it just completely sucked at it. Like insanely inefficient queries that scan multiple tables multiple times instead of more efficient joins and other methods… Shame, I was hoping it would be good for refactoring at least if you gave it good examples