• FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    53
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    15 hours ago

    Assuming these updates are fully tested before they’re deployed, by a human, it shouldn’t be that impactful negatively that AI is being used. The problem comes when updates are moved into production without human oversight.

    But it gives me the heebie jeebies, since AI is known to make and fuck shit up, and I’m stuck using MS Teams every day in my job so I see all the weird shit that vibe coding produces. I don’t relish the thought of weird, stupid shit happening to my Linux installation.

    • leftzero@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      it shouldn’t be that impactful negatively that AI is being used

      Doesn’t it invalidate the GPL? Open source licenses depend on copyright, and LLM-generated code isn’t copyrightable.

      (Also, it can’t be proven not to contain plagiarised proprietary code, in fact it’s quite likely that it does; between this, the testing / review burden, and the mental decay of developers that use LLMs instead of coding, this pretty much kills open source projects, in several different ways to make sure they stay dead…)

      • Hacksaw@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        It’s not that they’re not copyrightable. That court case is misunderstood. The vibe coder tried to give the AI the copyright and the judge ruled that was stupid because AI can’t own shit.

        Also copyright doesn’t mean much anymore because companies are rewriting open source software as copyrightable vibe coded bullshit the same way people are “open sourcing” Adobe using vibe coded crap.

        It’s garbage “progress” all the way down.

    • iocase@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      edit-2
      11 hours ago

      Plus studies on skill decay when using AI. Also the linux maintainer onboarding pipeline—which was already critically endangered—is now no longer building understanding through writing code, just monitoring it’s generation.

      I personally think you need to write a language by hand without AI doing it for you to learn in detail. It’s like trying to learn how to do math or how to write mandarin by just supervising an AI doing it… you need to do it yourself. Supervising is fine if you’re already fluent in mandarin and have been writing it for years and years. If you’re just learning it’s less than useless. If anything its directly harmful to learning.

      Same with speaking a language yourself without crutching your native language as the best method to learn to speak it (immersion)

      Edit: The long term externalities of AI—like pretty much everything nowadays—is going to be made worse by short term thinking. Quarterly profits and yearly results take precedence over long term skill development. Even OSS like linux will eat its seed corn out of expediency because of a lack of maintainers and new candidates being onboarded into the ivory tower mailing lists…

    • 🇨🇦GreenBeard🇨🇦@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      12 hours ago

      One thing I’m noticing about AI code is it’s very, very task oriented. Like it will produce code, that works for the one objective, but absolutely will not account for other interactions with other parts of the system. It’s really bad at juggling multiple priorities so for every solution it creates, it causes another 2 problems with other parts of the stack. Human coders would design a solution that takes those interactions into account from the ground up. With an AI solution, you kind of have to rebuild those interactions as an afterthought, which is where a lot of failures occur. Since interaction of multiple subsystems is kind of the whole point of a kernel… I have concerns.

    • pageflight@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Human review of AI is sufficient in theory, but in practice it’s never as thorough as the understanding you get writing it yourself. It’s hard to avoid AI, but it is a constant invitation to laziness.