True, but let's not forget that 2 + 2 = 4 can be achieved through a million different patterns^[(((((64 / 2) / 2) / 2) / 2) / 2) + (((((64 / 2) / 2) / 2) / 2) / 2) is a valid pattern for 2 + 2, for instance], so just because AI can find a working pattern doesn't make it good

Linus comparing AI to text editors and fucking compilers shows how high on his own farts he is. Given the same input, a compiler will always produce the same output, down to the last bit. The same cannot be said about AI - throw the same version of claude code with the same prompt on the same computer file and it will produce different results, maybe with a "similar enough" end result, but not identical.

AI is not a tool, it's a million monkeys with keyboards that cannot be held accountable for their output.

[–] otter@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 minutes ago* (last edited 53 seconds ago)

That quote was someone else

"LLMs are good enough now," said Greg Kroah-Hartman, a veteran Linux kernel maintainer, at the Linux Foundation's Open Source Summit in South Korea in August. "They've gotten good enough to find bugs because LLMs, AI, are just pattern matchers and code is nothing but patterns in a specific format."

Also to be fair, that quote is about finding bugs and the guy might not have been talking about using AI to patch them. The article makes it sound that way, but the article also seems overly confident and pro-AI about some other things too.

You can deterministically find something that is clearly defined, but bugs don't fall into that category