Not sure what’s all the fuss about what Linus said. He is not endorsing AI, he is simply saying Linux will not take a political/ideological stance about it.
If AI is useful and can submit contributions that are not slop, then so be it. IMO, AI cannot provide meaningful contributions without humans clearing all the slop first so I would expect either a ton of rejected submissions from contributors who don’t know what they are doing
The problem is, LLMs (Ai) isn’t just another tool. Even if the code is reviewed well and not slop at all, there are inherent uncertainties using such tools to generate code. We don’t know how the future of code generated by Ai can be licensed and used; it does not even provide the original license of the code it was trained on. This is not just ideological, there are unsolved risks. And this is the best case scenario, as we assume the developers aren’t slopping around.
Mind you, I’m critical about Ai, especially the online tools. But I’m not entirely against it, yet. I can however understand why people are against using Ai in Linux is a critical issue, for the reasons I described above. For myself I just play around with local Ai (on my 8gb VRAM+32gb RAM btw), so you see I’m not entirely against it.
That’s a fair point but again, I feel like people are treating Linus comments as if he had said “all AI is welcome, we are not even coding anymore” which is what I think most people fear but not what is happening with Linux
I think that’s because Linus subverted all expectations by those people, which comes at a shock. They were expecting Linus to be against Ai. Especially because in the past he was bashing and not taking Ai seriously. So he changed his mind, while the audience (who do not work on the Linux Kernel) stayed with the same opinion.
Not sure what’s all the fuss about what Linus said. He is not endorsing AI, he is simply saying Linux will not take a political/ideological stance about it.
If AI is useful and can submit contributions that are not slop, then so be it. IMO, AI cannot provide meaningful contributions without humans clearing all the slop first so I would expect either a ton of rejected submissions from contributors who don’t know what they are doing
The problem is, LLMs (Ai) isn’t just another tool. Even if the code is reviewed well and not slop at all, there are inherent uncertainties using such tools to generate code. We don’t know how the future of code generated by Ai can be licensed and used; it does not even provide the original license of the code it was trained on. This is not just ideological, there are unsolved risks. And this is the best case scenario, as we assume the developers aren’t slopping around.
Mind you, I’m critical about Ai, especially the online tools. But I’m not entirely against it, yet. I can however understand why people are against using Ai in Linux is a critical issue, for the reasons I described above. For myself I just play around with local Ai (on my 8gb VRAM+32gb RAM btw), so you see I’m not entirely against it.
That’s a fair point but again, I feel like people are treating Linus comments as if he had said “all AI is welcome, we are not even coding anymore” which is what I think most people fear but not what is happening with Linux
I think that’s because Linus subverted all expectations by those people, which comes at a shock. They were expecting Linus to be against Ai. Especially because in the past he was bashing and not taking Ai seriously. So he changed his mind, while the audience (who do not work on the Linux Kernel) stayed with the same opinion.
indeed, that does sound like a good hypothesis as to what happened here.
One does not “simply” avoid taking a political position - the silence is deafening.