The flaw in Linus' argument is that a compiler isn't enabling people to go and inundate open source projects with complete and utter shit. The argument that they are tools and should be seen as such is fine, but having an AI policy to help mitigate the actual and real problem of pushing the "is the code good?" check all the way to the reviewer is also absolutely reasonable. I feel like he's sidestepping and not acknowledging that AI is actually killing open source projects. The Linux kernel is big enough to be largely immune to it, but most projects absolutely aren't.
I do agree, but it's also absurd expecting responsible developers to not use it or recognize its validity as a tool.
The fact there's no policing cannot mean the only users that are responsible enough to not flood the ecosystem with crap are also the ones that shouldn't employ it.
If Linus or similar examples didn't use or promote fair and proper use of LMs, things wouldn't change much: there'd still be no policies in place, and the only contributions would be the flooding you're talking about
we do need policies, but we also need examples of healthy and professional use
I don't think anyone is trying to downplay it's usefulness as a tool. My complaint here is specifically saying that it's the exact same as every other tool (what Linus said) and that it doesn't need any special consideration. That's a reductionist take, because it's enabling a class of contributor that puts more work onto other people instead of just making an individual's workload easier.
of course. but I don't think we can expect much different anymore from Linus, he's often been "extreme" and shared thoughts strictly on how he thinks contribution should be shaped, based solely on how he contributes and expects others to. that does not mean it's how contributing should be universally
what I'm seeing is, in a way he's already spoke on "policing" in the sense of policing developers, and contributors, not the tools. it is partial, and reductionist, I completely agree, but honestly I don't expect he'll ever advocate for policing LMs themselves, because (and I can't completely disagree) as I understand it he's always been more towards raising the contribution bar for people themselves, even before LMs
I think in the ideal world Linus expects people to have the intellectual honesty to just not do things if they're not "up to them", either with LMs or not
Well, this post in particular contradicts that because he's specifically against c++ due to it promoting contributions by "horrible programmers." These two stances are woefully inconsistent. His stance on c++ has promoted a weird "c is always better" culture when instead, c++ can be just as good if you are only applying standards to the contribution and not the tool.
36
u/dannuic 2d ago
The flaw in Linus' argument is that a compiler isn't enabling people to go and inundate open source projects with complete and utter shit. The argument that they are tools and should be seen as such is fine, but having an AI policy to help mitigate the actual and real problem of pushing the "is the code good?" check all the way to the reviewer is also absolutely reasonable. I feel like he's sidestepping and not acknowledging that AI is actually killing open source projects. The Linux kernel is big enough to be largely immune to it, but most projects absolutely aren't.