Ultimately, the policy legally anchors every single line of AI-generated code
How would that even be possible? Given the state of things:
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3543507.3583199
Our results suggest that […] three types of plagiarism widely exist in LMs beyond memorization, […] Given that a majority of LMs’ training data is scraped from the Web without informing content owners, their reiteration of words, phrases, and even core ideas from training sets into generated texts has ethical implications. Their patterns are likely to exacerbate as both the size of LMs and their training data increase, […] Plagiarized content can also contain individuals’ personal and sensitive information.
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/2026/01/ai-memorization-research/685552/
Four popular large language models—OpenAI’s GPT, Anthropic’s Claude, Google’s Gemini, and xAI’s Grok—have stored large portions of some of the books they’ve been trained on, and can reproduce long excerpts from those books. […] This phenomenon has been called “memorization,” and AI companies have long denied that it happens on a large scale. […]The Stanford study proves that there are such copies in AI models, and it is just the latest of several studies to do so.
The court confirmed that training large language models will generally fall within the scope of application of the text and data mining barriers, […] the court found that the reproduction of the disputed song lyrics in the models does not constitute text and data mining, as text and data mining aims at the evaluation of information such as abstract syntactic regulations, common terms and semantic relationships, whereas the memorisation of the song lyrics at issue exceeds such an evaluation and is therefore not mere text and data mining
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949719123000213#b7
In this work we explored the relationship between discourse quality and memorization for LLMs. We found that the models that consistently output the highest-quality text are also the ones that have the highest memorization rate.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.02671
recent work shows that substantial amounts of copyrighted text can be extracted from open-weight models. However, it remains an open question if similar extraction is feasible for production LLMs, given the safety measures […]. We investigate this question […] our work highlights that, even with model- and system-level safeguards, extraction of (in-copyright) training data remains a risk for production LLMs.
How does merely tagging the apparently stolen content make it less problematic, given I’m guessing it still won’t have any attribution of the actual source (which for all we know, might often even be GPL incompatible)?
But I’m not a lawyer, so I guess what do I know. But even from a non-legal angle, what is this road the Linux Foundation seems to embrace of just ignoring the license of projects? Why even have the kernel be GPL then, rather than CC0?
I don’t get it. And the article calling this “pragmatism” seems absurd to me.
Given the research that you’ve done here I’m going to assume that you’re looking for an answer and not simply taking us on a gish gallop.
Your premise, and what appears to be the primary source of confusion, is built on the idea that this is ‘stolen’ work which, from a legal point of view, is untrue. If you want to dig into why that is, look into the president setting case of Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc. (2015). The TL;DR is that training AI on copyrighted works falls under the Fair Use exemptions in copyright law. i.e. It is legal, not stealing.
The case you linked from Munich shows that other country’s legal systems are interpreting AI training in the same way. Training AI isn’t about memorization and plagiarism of existing work, it’s using existing work to learn the underlying patterns.
That isn’t to say that memorization doesn’t happen, but it is more of a point of interest to AI scientists that are working on understanding how AI represents knowledge internally than a point that lands in a courtrooom.
We all memorize copyrighted data as part of our learning. You, too, can quote Disney movies or Stephen King novels if prompted in the right way. This doesn’t make any work you create automatically become plagarism, it just means that you have viewed copyrighted work as part of your learning process. In the same way, artists have the capability to create works which violate the copyright of others and they consumed copyrighted works as part of their learning process. These facts don’t taint all of their work, either morally or legally… only the output that literally violates copyright laws.
The pragmatism here is recognizing that these tools exist and that people use them. The current legal landscape is such that the output of these tools is as if they were the output of the users. If an image generator generates a copyrighted image then the rightsholder can sue the person, not the software. If a code generator generates licensed code then the tool user is responsible.
This is much like how we don’t restrict the usage of Photoshop despite the fact that it can be used to violate copyright. We, instead, put the burden on the person who operates the tool
That’s what is happening here. Linus isn’t using his position to promote/enforce/encourage LLM use, nor is he using his position to prevent/restrict/disallow any AI use at all. He is recognizing that this is a tool that exists in the world in 2026 and that his project needs to have procedures that acknowledge this while also ensuring that a human is the one responsible for their submissions.
This is the definition of pragmatism (def: action or policy dictated by consideration of the immediate practical consequences rather than by theory or dogma).
The TL;DR is that training AI on copyrighted works falls under the Fair Use exemptions in copyright law
This judgement was reversed by the next federal judge that reviewed AI, in the Meta case.
It is far from legally settled whether training is fair use or not.
Well, cynically, the Supreme Court will decide and Team AI has more money to buy RVs and luxury vacations.
Training AI isn’t about memorization and plagiarism of existing work, it’s using existing work to learn the underlying patterns.
Thank you. This is exactly what people misunderstands. LLMs aren’t gigantic databases that just shuffles information that they’ve copied from the internet.
That’s not really how copyright law works.
It is though. If you commit copyrighted code that was generated by an LLM, you do have to follow the license of that code. If you don’t, that’s copyright infringement.
Even if the code isn’t copyrighted code, then it’s public domain code that can’t be copyrighted:
https://sciactive.com/human-contribution-policy/#More-Information
You’re confusing two separate legal issues.
Copyright is created and enforced by copyright law.
Licenses are created and enforced by contract law.
You can violate a contract without violating a copyright and you can violate a copyright without agreeing to a license. You can also license works that are not able to be protected by a copyright because they are two separate categories of law.
Sure, you can license them, but that license is unenforceable, because you don’t own the copyrights, so you can’t sue anyone for copyright infringement. And you’d have to be a fool to agree to a license for public domain material. You can do whatever you want with it, no license necessary.
because you don’t own the copyrights, so you can’t sue anyone for copyright infringement.
You can’t sue for copyright infringement.
You can, however, use content which is not able to be copyrighted and also still license (under contract law/EULAs) your product including terms prohibiting copying of the non-copyrightable information.
This was settled in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProCD%2C_Inc._v._Zeidenberg
On Zeidenberg’s copyright argument, the circuit court noted the 1991 Supreme Court precedent Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, in which it was found that the information within a telephone directory (individual phone numbers) were facts that could not be copyrighted. For Zeidenberg’s argument, the circuit court assumed that a database collecting the contents of one or more telephone directories was equally a collection of facts that could not be copyrighted. Thus, Zeidenberg’s copyright argument was valid. However, this did not lead to a victory for Zeidenberg, because the circuit court held that copyright law does not preempt contract law. Since ProCD had made the investments in its business and its specific SelectPhone product, it could require customers to agree to its terms on how to use the product, including a prohibition on copying the information therein regardless of copyright protections
You can’t copyright phone numbers, just like you can’t copyright generated code, but you can still create a license which protects your uncopyrightable content and it can be enforced via contract law.
Sure, but if it’s open source, I can just take that code without agreeing to your contract. Since it’s public domain, I can do whatever I want with it. You can only enforce a contract if I agree to it.
It doesn’t have to be open source.
If someone 100% generates code to make software then the software isn’t protected by copyright.
That software could be distributed and licensed under an EULA and the fact that it isn’t protected by copyright means absolutely nothing as far as the EULA is concerned.
The copyright status and the ability to license a piece of software under contract law do not depend on one another.
The Linux Kernel is under a copyleft license - it isnt being copyrighted.
But the policy being discussed isn’t allowing the use of copyrighted code - they’re simply requiring any code submitted by AI be tagged as such so that the human using the agent is ultimately responsible for any infringing code, instead of allowing that code go undisclosed (and even ‘certified’ by the dev submitting it even if they didnt write or review it themselves)
Submissions are still subject to copyright law - the law just doesnt function the way you or OP are suggesting.
Copyleft doesn’t mean it’s not copyrighted. Copyleft is not a legal term. “Copyleft” licenses are enforced through copyright ownership.
Did you read the quotes from the copyright office I linked to? I am going to go ahead and trust the copyright office over you on issues of copyrightability.
Even if this were true, it would only mean that the GNU license is unenforceable, not that the Linux kernel itself is infringing copyright
Unless the code the AI generated is a copy of copyrighted code, of course. Then it would be copyright infringement.
I can cause the AI to spit out code that I own the copyright to, because it was trained on my code too. If someone used that code without including attribution to me (the requirement of the license I release my code under), that would be copyright infringement. Do you understand what I mean?
That would be true even if they didn’t use AI to reproduce it.
The problem being addressed by the Linux foundation isn’t the use of copyrighted work in developer contribution, it’s the assumption that the code was authored by them at all just because it’s submitted in their name and tagged as verified.
Does that make sense?
they’re simply requiring any code submitted by AI be tagged as such so that the human using the agent is ultimately responsible for any infringing code, instead of allowing that code go undisclosed
This makes zero sense, because the article says that this new tagging will replace the legally binding “Signed-off-by” tag. Wouldn’t that old tag already put that responsibility on the person submitting the code.
Also - what will holding the submitter responsible even achieve? If an infringement is detected, the Linux maintainers won’t be able to just pass all the blame to the submitter of that code while keeping it in the codebase - they’ll have to remove the infringing code regardless of who’s responsible for putting it in.
Kinda, but they’re specifically saying the the AI agent cannot itself tag the contribution with the sign-off - like, someone using Claude Code to submit PRs on their behalf. The developer must add the tag themselves, indicating that they at least reviewed and submitted it themselves, and it wasn’t just an agent going off-prompt or some other shit and submitting it without the developer’s knowledge. This is saying ‘the dog ate my homework’ is not a valid excuse.
The developer can use AI, but they must review the code themselves, and the agent can’t “sign-off” on the code for them.
Also - what will holding the submitter responsible even achieve?
What does holding any individual responsible on a development team do? The Linux project is still responsible for anything they put out in the kernel just like any other project, but individual developers can be removed from the contributing team if they break the rules and put it at risk.
The new rule simply makes the expectations clear.
Would you also say that to this lawyer reviewing Co-Pilot in 2026? https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/issues/38072#issuecomment-4105681567
Disclaimer: this isn’t legal advice.
LLMs themselves being products of copyright isnt the legal question at issue, it’s the downstream use of that product.
If I use a copyright-infringing work as a part of a new creative work, does that new work infringe copyright by default? Or does the new work need to be judged itself as to the question of infringing a copyrighted work?
And if it is judged as infringing, who is responsible for the damage done? Can I pass the damages back to the original infringing work? Or should I be held responsible for not performing due diligence?
If I use a copyright-infringing work as a part of a new creative work, does that new work infringe copyright by default?
No, see reaction content, parody content, etc. They all undoubtedly use copyrighted work and they don’t automatically infringe on copyright by default.
And if it is judged as infringing, who is responsible for the damage done? Can I pass the damages back to the original infringing work? Or should I be held responsible for not performing due diligence?
The infringing party is the human that used the tool which generated the infringing work. Everything after that is exactly the same applicaton of copyright law just as if you were selling pictures of Mickey Mouse that you drew yourself. Disney can sue you, they can’t sue the pencil manufacturer.
Yup
People want to pretend as if everything that flows downstream from the creation of LLMs is illegal, but that’s just not the reality.
“Yes to Copilot, no to AI slop”
Pick One
Where does slop start? If you use auto complete and it is just adding a semicolon or some braces, is it slop? Is producing character by character what you would have wrote yourself slop?
How about using it for debugging?
There is a certain brand of user (who may or may not be a human) who draws the venn of ‘AI slop’ and ‘AI output’ as a circle.
They’ve taken the extremist position that AI should be uninvented and any use of AI is the worst thing that could possibly happen to any project and they’ll have an entire grab bag of misinformation-based memes to shotgun at you. Engaging with these people is about as productive as trying to convince a vaccine denier that vaccines don’t cause autism.
I’m not saying that the user you replies to believes this, but the comment they wrote is indistinguishable from the comments of such a user.
According to the US Copyright Office, AI generated material cannot be copyrighted (unless of course it’s plagiarized copyrighted code). That’s reason enough to leave it out of the kernel. If the kernel’s license becomes unenforceable because of public domain code, the kernel is tainted.
Copyright and License terms are two different categories of law. Copyright is an idea created and enforced by the laws of the country which has jurisdiction. Licenses are a contract between two parties and is covered by contract law.
A thing can be unable to be protected by copyright and also protected by the terms of the license that it is provided under. If a project contains copyrighted code that does not mean that you cannot be held to the terms of the license. Your use of licensed works is granted under the agreement that you follow the terms of the license. You cannot be held liable for copyright violations for using the code, but using the code in a manner that is not allowed by the license makes you liable for violation of the contract that is the license agreement.
I think you’re misunderstanding what I’m saying. Any portions of the kernel that are public domain can be used by anyone for any purpose without following the terms of the GPL. AI generated code is public domain. To make sure all parts of the kernel are protected by the GPL, public domain code should not be accepted unless absolutely necessary.
I don’t see the problem. GPL protects all of the code that is copyrighted, i.e. 100% made by humans. Accepting a submission created with AI tools doesn’t change this. It’s not going to be a simple task for someone who has decided to violate the GPL license to only use the generated/uncopyrighted portions without using any other GPL code and thus being subject to GPL licensing terms.
These hypothetical GPL violating people will have a hard time using lines 27-38 of ./kernel/events/ring_buffer.c to do anything even if they technically can do so without releasing their code under the GPL. If they use any piece of GPL code, at all, anywhere, their entire project is required to follow the GPL. So while they could, technically, take 27-38 of ring_buffer.c and build an entire proprietary non-GPL Linux kernel… it is, in practice, not feasible even if it technically possible.
So what happens thirty years from now when 95% of the kernel code is AI generated? It’ll be a lot easier to rewrite the parts that aren’t, and have a fully closed source kernel that you can use without following the GPL.
It’s less extremist if you look at how easily these LLMs will just plagiarize 1:1, apparently:
https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/issues/38072#issuecomment-4105681567
Some see “AI slop” as “identified by the immediate problems of it that I can identify right away”.
Many others see “AI slop” as bringing many more problems beyond the immediate ones. Then seeing LLM output as anything but slop becomes difficult.
It’s extremist to take the fact that you CAN get plagiaristic output and to conclude that all other output is somehow tainted.
You personally CAN quote copyrighted music and screenplays. If you’re an artist then you also CAN produce copyright violating works. None of these facts taint any of the other things that you produce that are not copyright or plagiarized.
In this situation, and in the current legal environment, the responsibility to not produce illegal and unlicensed code is on the human. The fact that the tool that they use has the capability to break the law does not mean that everything generated by it is tainted.
Photoshop can be used to plagiarize and violate copyright too. It would be just as absurd to declare all images created with Photoshop are somehow suspect or unusable because of the capability of the tool to violate copyright laws.
The fact that AI can, when specifically prompted, produce memorized segments of the training data has essentially no legal weight in any of the cases where it has been argued. It is a fact that is of interest to scientists who study how AI represent knowledge internally and not any kind of foundation for a legal argument against the use of AI.
Sure, but if they can be demonstrated to ever plagiarize without attribution, and the default user behavior is to pencil-whip the output, which it is, then it becomes statistically certain that users are unwittingly plagiarizing other works.
Its like using a tool that usually bakes cookies, but every once in a great while, it knocks over the building its in. It almost never does that, though.
Plagiarism and copyright violation are two different things, one is ethical and the other is legal.
Copyright has a body of case law which helps determine when a work significantly infringes on the copyrighted work of another. Plagiarism has no body of law at all, it is an ethical construct and not a legal one.
You can plagiarize something that has no copyright protection and you can infringe on copyright protection without plagiarizing. They’re not interchangeable concepts.
In your example, some institutions would not allow such a device to operate on their property but it would not be illegal to operate and the liability would be on the person and not on the oven.
To further strain the metaphor, Linus is saying that you can use (possibly) exploding ovens, because he isn’t taking a moral stance on the topic, but you are responsible for the damages if they cause any because the legal systems require that this be the case.
To me, it starts at anything beyond correcting spelling for individual words or adding punctuation. I don’t even want it suggesting quick reply phrases.
Is producing character by character what you would have wrote yourself slop?
Yes.
There’s the rub. When establishing laws and guidelines, every term must be explicitly defined. Lack of specificity in these definitions is where bad-faith actors hide their misdeeds by technically obeying the letter of the law due to its vagueness, while flagrantly violating its spirit.
Its why today, in the USA, corporations are legally people when its convenient, and not when its not, and the expenditure of money is governments protected “free speech”.
You don’t need AI to autocomplete code. We’ve had autocomplete for over 30 years.
If you would have written it yourself the same way, why not write it yourself? (And there was autocomplete before the age of LLMs, anyway.)
The big problems start with situations where it doesn’t match what you would have written, but rather what somebody else has written, character by character.
Its only slop if you accept slop. What i mean is that it cna and does generate perfectly fine code. It also generates code that is ok, but needs a human touch. It also generates verbose garbage.
Its only slop if you approve the slop. Its perfectly fine to let it generate the boilerplate of what you want, and tweak it. If its prompted well enough, you get less slop.
Ultimately I am with Linus on this one. The genie is out of the bottle. Use it responsibly.
I mean I don’t use copilot but a self hosted Claude at work for debugging and creating templates. I still run thru and test it. I’m only doing crossplane, kyverno, kubernetes infra things though and I started without it so I have an understanding. Now running their someone’s crossplane composition written in go and I asked them about this error and he just said get the AI to fix it was worrying since his last day is next week.
Bad actors submitting garbage code aren’t going to read the documentation anyway, so the kernel should focus on holding human developers accountable rather than trying to police the software they run on their local machines.
“Guns don’t kill people. People kill people”
Torvalds and the maintainers are acknowledging reality: developers are going to use AI tools to code faster, and trying to ban them is like trying to ban a specific brand of keyboard.
The author should elaborate on how exactly AI is like “a specific brand of keyboard”. Last I checked a keyboard only enters what I type, without hallucinating 50 extra pages. And if AI, a tool that generates content, is like “a specific brand of keyboard”, does that mean my brain is also a “specific brand of keyboard”?
I get their point. If you want to create good code by having AI create bad code and then spending twice the time to fix it, feel free to do that. But I’m in favor of a complete ban.
Wooting and Razer had a macro function that allowed Counterstrike players to setup a function to always get counter strafe. Valve decided that was a bridge too far and banned “Hardware level” exploits.
So, Valve once banned a keyboard.
Last I checked a keyboard only enters what I type
I’m assuming the author is talking about mobile keyboards, which have autocomplete and autocorrect.
AI is a useful tool for coding as long as it’s being used properly. The problem isn’t the tool, the problem is the companies who scraped the entire internet, trained LLM models, and then put them behind paywalls with no options to download the weights so that they could be self-hosted. Brazen, unaccountable profiteering off of the goodwill of many open source projects without giving anything back.
If LLMs were community-trained on available, open-source code with weights freely available for anyone to host there wouldn’t be nearly as much animosity against the tech itself. The enemy isn’t the tool, but the ones who built the tool at the expense of everyone and are hogging all the benefits.
There are hundreds of such LLMs with published training sets and weights available on places like HuggingFace. Lots of people run their own LLMs locally, it’s not hard if you have enough vram and a bit of patience to wait longer for each reply.
Eh, trust me, anti AI people don’t think this much about it
Also, there are a lot of open weight models out there that are pretty good
The (very obvious) point is that this cannot be enforced. So might as well deal with it upfront.
The keyboard thing is sort of a parable, it is as difficult to determine if code was generated in part by AI as it is to determine what keyboard was used to create it.
Torvalds and the maintainers are acknowledging reality: developers are going to use AI tools to code faster, and trying to ban them is like trying to ban a specific brand of keyboard.The author should elaborate on how exactly AI is like “a specific brand of keyboard”. Last I checked a keyboard only enters what I type, without hallucinating 50 extra pages. And if AI, a tool that generates content, is like “a specific brand of keyboard”, does that mean my brain is also a “specific brand of keyboard”?
It’s about the heritage of code not being visible from the surface. I don’t know about your brain.
Out of curiosity how much code have you contributed to the Linux kernel?
Last I checked a keyboard only enters what I type
I’ve had (broken) keyboard “hallucinate” extra keystrokes before, because of stuck keys. Or ignore keypresses. But yeah, that means the keyboard is broken.
You’re the one comparing AI and guns/killing people, and then saying their metaphorical comparison isn’t accurate? Lol
I’m curious how this is going to play out legally for copyright. If you accept AI code, you can’t copyright it, so aren’t you essentially forfeiting the copyleft license?
They aren’t allowing fully ai generated code. Copyright office says ai used in the process does not forefit the copyright, but ai generating the content entirely (or almost entirely) does. By having the user be responsible for the code, it burdens the user to make sure this stuff isn’t abused to do that.
Where’s that line drawn? Just the fact that it’s an open legal question makes accepting these contributions risky.
Linux kernel being written by Microsoft’s AI.
Microsoft needs to try to ruin Linux somehow, it can’t just hurt windows 11 with AI slop code, it needs to expand it’s efforts to other systems.
which is trained on free and open source code
That will definitely not introduce some weird things when it starts feeding on itself.
Maintainers’ only responsibility is to ensure quality and shouldn’t have to check for rogue AI submissions.
Tho I still miss consistent fucking weather so year of the netbsd?
Ensuring you don’t approve garbage, either human or AI generated, is part of quality
Saying fuck AI as is the new circle jerk trend on Lemmy is fucking retarded as hell. It only displays a complete lack of knowledge in the field.
If you want no AI in your life, never go to the doctor. Never go to the supermarket. Never buy anything online. Never conclude an insurance. Never play videogames. Never watch any streaming platform. Never search anything online. Never drive anywhere. Never get driven anywhere. Never consult weather information.
You know what? Just fucking move on top of a fucking mountain and Into the wild yourself.
AI does not exists. There are a shit ton of various models, all designed with various purposes. Some are good. Some aren’t. Some are pure fucking evil and yet Americans use them in their fucking judiciary system but I guess it’s ok because it did not draw Mario in Ghibli style.
Fuck the corporate ransacking, chatbot subscription hell hole, and general breaking of the internet done under the framing of “AI”.
Guess that doesn’t really roll of the tongue like Fuck AI but sure so yeah let’s just move to a mountain instead of pushing for a better world.
Funny how nothing you wrote has anything to do with AI but with capitalism but yeah sure let’s blame AI instead of the USA, its government and its oligarchs ruining the world for everybody.
Obviously capitalism makes pretty much everything worse but let’s not pretend AI wouldn’t have issues without capitalism too.
Stop fucking talking about “AI”. It does not fucking exist.
You’re very angry for a person who literally used the term themselves a couple of comments ago. What term would you rather use then? It’s colloquial, everyone knows what I’m talking about. Are you the kind of person who gets angry when someone doesn’t call it “GNU/Linux” too?
You’re having basix reading comprehension.
Damn man, go for a walk or something.
For the master’s tool shall never dismantle the master’s house
oh that’s why this is the “it’s just a tool” gun debate
Wtf is this moronic take
Fuck AI- anyway.
The whole AI hype is just making tech giant whackjobs more rich, as well as FUCKING us over in somany ways.
The world ain’t black and white you cannot just hate AI, its just a general term, but fuck allose mofos tryna make more bucks off of this- as if they weren’t rich already.
I wonder why they just give away free “intelligence”, as in free AI chatbots that everyone can access which is so obviously - extremely non profitable, They keep yapping they need to make “information” more accessible and keeps throwing money into a hole.
FUCKING make education more accessible :|
People I know, most of them rely on texting to their little chatgpt in their phone to get through day to day tasks, algorithms chose what they watch, now Language learning models decides what they do throughout their life- We are supposed to learn shit ourselves, if we cognitively Offload every shit from our brain- We are just making ourselves more stupid.
TL; DR That was just a useless and brainless rant on AI lol
Then fight against what matters : the fucking oligarchs and their fucking piece of shit friends at the head of the USA.
People I know, most of them rely on texting to their little chatgpt in their phone to get through day to day tasks, algorithms chose what they watch, now Language learning models decides what they do throughout their life- We are supposed to learn shit ourselves, if we cognitively Offload every shit from our brain- We are just making ourselves more stupid.
That’s what they oligarchs want. They want us ignorant so we will be good little wage slaves and consumers.
People confuse GPTs with AI, but your comment takes the wrong approach: it’s not that AI hate is not deserved, it’s that the hate should be directed towards the chatbots and the associated bubble.
Yea, but when am average person talks about AI they just mean a Chatbot or GenAI right?
99.99% of the time.
“AI” is simply a field of study. There is no true bar for “AI” that GPTs fail. Because there is no true bar for AI. a symbolic AI system is as much AI as the most advanced LLM or world model or whatever.
AI hate is not deserved. Hate the game not the player.
No, it’s definitely deserved, sparky. The game and the player are both horrible.
This is like your opinion, and I think it’s a dumb one.
You’ve shown from your comments here that thinking isn’t exactly your forte, spud.
The new gun debate
Did you ever see a gun diagnose a cancer?
This is the dumbest comment I’ve seen in a while
As someone who works in healthcare, in IT, who has been directly involved in the commissioning of an AI designed to spot skin cancers from pictures taken with special lenses attached to iphones. No healthcare provider is using these tools in place of doctors. These AI models are incredibly accurate but the human is still needed to spot false positives. They dont leave diagnostic decisions up to AI. I can tell you that for a fact.
Same thing with everything related to every single algorithm implementation in every single sector.
no need for ableist slurs
You know what? Just fucking move on top of a fucking mountain and Into the wild yourself.
Workin’ on it.
Fuck AI and fuck you
Big monks huhu
I didnt think that was the point. Fuck AI is just a slogan representing peoples disdain for corporate types who think chatgpt literally the second coming of jesus and is going to save us all. Its people who are taking LLMs and pretending they can reason and think like humans. People that think they can sack all their staff and replace them with AI. Its more complex than that. You know that, i am certain you do. AI can do somethings very well, and other things it absolutely falls over flat on its face.
Unless i am misunderstanding, this was never about the blanket boycotting of anything AI and it was more about not pretending it is more than it is and shoving down the throats of non consenting consumers.
Then the issue is the fucking American oligarchs and their fucking piece of shit government, not “AI”.
How you got that from what i said will remain a mystery.
So because it’s getting shoveled into everything we have to use we’re supposed to just roll over and not fight it? Fuck you. I don’t want my doctor using this garbage, I don’t want to see images created with it, I don’t want it generating (almost always inaccurate) search results for me. Nothing it does is reliable. Maybe if it ever becomes so I’ll lighten up but it’s not even close and attempting to rely on it now is only accelerating the enshittification of literally everything.
You have no idea what the fuck you’re talking about and your opinion should be labeled as fucking idiotic.
K
I hate ai in my kernel…
I agree. If AI becomes outlawed, it will simply be used without other people knowing about it.
This approach, at least, means that people will label AI-generated code as such.
Maybe. There’s still strong disapproval around it. I can imagine many will still hide it.
Ecological, social, economic issues and the answer is on the legal site. FOSS as usual I guess
How is this all supposed to be, when AI code can not be copyrighted and thus those submissions to the Linux kernel can not be eg.: GPLv{number}?
Ah, the solution that recognizes there’s no way to eliminate AI from the supply chain after it’s already been introduced.
You make it sound as if there was another choice if just people had better principles. Pray tell us, what would you have done, now. Not in the past, now.
That wasn’t my intent. This is me saying, “of course that’s what they’re going to do because there’s nothing else they can do.”
I completely misunderstood you. I’m sorry.
You’re agreeing with the comment you replied to. Why the fuck are you trying to be so smug???
I don’t understand the full picture here, but the person who is submitting AI slop will be held accountable. Never a company.
So if a company is pushing staff to us AI to complete projects faster and their code ends up being AI slop when submitted, only the person working for the company will be held responsible.
I’m not sure what the repercussions are here but hopefully it’s not a large fine. Those fines could add up quick if the person is submitting code all the time and doesn’t know they are messing up.
Which fines, this is just an internal rule in an organization.
At most can be rightfully banned from contributing
It someone is contributing with code that doesn’t really understand, then shouldn’t contribute
Ah okay got it now. Thanks. I didn’t understand it all the way. My comment is irrelevant
I’d still be highly sceptical about pull requests with code created by llms. Personally what I noticed is that the author of such pr doesn’t even read the code, and i have to go through all the slop
Ya I’m finding myself being the bad code generator at work as I’m scattered across so many things at the moment due to attrition and AI can do a lot of the boilerplate work, but it’s such a time and energy sink to fully review what it generates and I’ve found basic things I missed that others catch and shows the sloppiness. I usually take pride in my code, but I have no attachment to what’s generated and that’s exposing issues with trying to scale out using this
Same. There’s reduction in workforce, pressure to move faster, and no good way to do that without sloppiness. I have never been this down on the industry before, which was never great, but now it’s terrible.
Some thought I had the other day :LLM is supposed to make us more productive, say by 20%. Have you won a 20% pay rise since you adopted it? I haven’t
Increases in productivity go to the owners, not the workers. Even imaginary increases in productivity.
Just fucking stop using it? Wtf? Tell you boss to pound sand! They’re going to blame you when it goes south anyway so you might as well stay honest.
I suspect the answer will be that such large requested as you frequently see with LLM codegen will just be rejected.
Already I see changes broken up and suggested bit by bit, so I presume the same best practice applies.
Did we all forget about stackoverflow?
Couple of years back I got a PR at work that used a block of code that read a CSV, used some stream method to covert it to binary to then feed it to pandas to make a dataframe. I don’t remember the exact steps it did, but was just crazy when pd.read_csv existed.
On a hunch I pasted the code in google and found an exact match on overflow for a very weird use case on very early pandas.
I’m lucky and if people send obvious shit at work I can just cc their manager, but I fell for the volunteers at large FOSS projects, or even paid employees.
Yeah people have not understood their code for centuries now
The rule should be “if you get caught using LLMs or caling them ‘AI’, you’re a dipshit and will never ever be let near the Kernel again.”
