this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2026
201 points (92.8% liked)

Technology

87680 readers
3379 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. 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.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
201
Linus Torvalds used AI to fix a Linux bug, and now LLM critics on Linux face an uncomfortable choice (www.xda-developers.com)
submitted 12 hours ago by themachinestops@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/technology@lemmy.world
181 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2026/08/msg00041.html

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world 9 points 1 hour ago (4 children)

People who are vehemently against any form of AI will be left behind. That may be difficult to hear, and even more difficult to accept, but that is the cold, hard, truth.

Its a tool, and just like any tool it has uses. It can be used inappropriately, and it's valid to criticize those instances. But if you are plugging your ears and going "Lalala!" when people talk about actual valid use cases, or stubbornly pretending that it has none, you will be left behind.

You will be like office employees from the 80's and 90's who refused to use a computer and then suddenly found themselves without a job. It's your choice if you use it or not. It's also every company's choice to not hire you because of your unwillingness to adapt.

If you haven't learned it yet, this is your warning and your wake-up call: Learn how to use AI now, or find a different career. It's not going away, no matter how much you may bitch and moan. There will soon be two classes of people, those who learned how to use this emerging technology, and those who refused. Things will be much harder for that second group.

I don't say this to be snarky or smug. I hate AI myself, but I also recognize how fucking stupid I'd have to be to refuse to use it. It's a bitter pill to swallow, but it's also the truth.

[–] melfie@lemmy.zip 8 points 47 minutes ago* (last edited 47 minutes ago) (2 children)

Agreed, although simply using LLMs to do your thinking for you is only going to decrease your value in the workplace and make you more replaceable. The goal needs to be learning how to use AI to expand your thinking, counteract your biases, improve the quality of your work, and accelerate your learning.

[–] Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works 0 points 18 minutes ago

If AI can do it for you, then let it. If it can't, that's where your value lies. If you just refuse to let it do things it can do well, you will be replaced by someone who's probably not as smart as you but simply willing to let AI do what it does well.

[–] daychilde@lemmy.world 3 points 43 minutes ago

Like anything else, using the tool properly requires skill and care.

[–] Epp@lemmus.org 1 points 16 minutes ago

Amen.

[–] eldavi@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 hour ago

good thing that downvotes can only be used to suppress narratives on lemmy. lol

[–] mirshafie@europe.pub 0 points 37 minutes ago

Why can I not upvote and downvote?

[–] davetortoise@reddthat.com 1 points 17 minutes ago

Please can someone fork the kernel, it would be so fucking funny

[–] shirasho@feddit.online 28 points 4 hours ago (6 children)

LLMs suck at writing code, but they are absolutely amazing at reading code and finding bugs. I am firmly against the usage of LLMs to write anything, but they have a place as a diagnostics tool when verified by a human.

[–] BeKindRewind@lemmy.world 2 points 56 minutes ago

There are already several large projects that have hundreds of thousands of users and those projects were almost completely vibe coded. It's almost the entire retro "recomp" scene now.

[–] ragas@lemmy.ml 1 points 40 minutes ago

At my company we are currently moving to implement AI for exactly that. A cost effective review buddy.

Various developers have tried to use it for coding and I think apart for one time scripts or getting an initial structure generated, noone is convinced of AI.

[–] daychilde@lemmy.world 0 points 42 minutes ago

LLMs suck at writing code,

So far.

[–] rothaine@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 hour ago (4 children)

Opus-class and higher models are actually great at writing code, but maybe it's language dependent? I primarily work in TypeScript.

[–] ragas@lemmy.ml 3 points 39 minutes ago

Opus in my experience sucks for writing code.

[–] aquovie@lemmy.cafe 7 points 1 hour ago

More than anything, it depends on the developer using it. In my experience, most are just slop shovelers that don't read or review what Claude does. Then it falls on the PR reviewer (me) to be an asshole: Did you review your own code? Do you understand what this part over here does? Why did you choose this method versus alternatives?

Unless you tell Claude/Opus otherwise, it's not going to take the initiative to refactor things, tidy up parts it didn't touch, or hell, it won't even spellcheck things. Can you really call it a language model if it outputs misspelled words? Its unit tests are great boilerplate but never comprehensive enough for me.

Claude is the developer that puts zero pride or effort in their work beyond the bare minimum to not get fired.

[–] CancerMancer@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 hour ago

I'm not terribly concerned if people write code and test it with AI, so long as they verify the results themselves.

I recently saw someone try to add a PR to something on github with thousands of lines of changes and then they got mad when people didn't want to do the free labour verifying it. That is a bullshit use of AI

[–] magnue@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

The lemmysphere will never agree

[–] luciferofastora@feddit.org 0 points 30 minutes ago* (last edited 29 minutes ago)

If we ever find a way to deal with the whole "burning the planet" issue, their best use case is to find and match patterns, not to imitate them.

The idea of using a language model to process search engine input isn't the dumbest part about Gemini and plenty of people report good results finding information easier and quicker with ChatGPT. In those cases, the deviation from rigid keywords is desirable because it can match results with related words rather than literal word-matching. Google Search already did a decent job at that (before the enshittification ran rampant), which more complex language models could improve even further.

The landmine is in their reproduction of those results, where the generated "summary" is the equivalent of a cunning bullshitter that convincingly sounds like he understood the topic but actually has no clue and just delivers a best guess. That's where the deviation becomes a risk of misinformation or introducing bugs.

They should narrow things down by finding the likely answers where that matters, not produce more stuff that humans will have to double-check.

[–] datavoid@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Line completion is pretty damn handy, it's when you start asking for whole functions that things go downhill

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›