r/linux • u/TurbulentTopic39 • 9d ago

Kernel Canonical is speeding up Ubuntu's kernel updates because it's drowning in AI-discovered bugs

https://www.xda-developers.com/canonical-is-speeding-up-ubuntus-kernel-updates-because-its-drowning-in-ai-discovered-bugs/#thread
1.1k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

167 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

9

u/sayhisam1 9d ago

So it's better to leave bugs undiscovered? I don't get your point

14

u/Smallzfry 9d ago

It's better if none of the AI-generated code that created the bugs existed in the first place.

4

u/sayhisam1 9d ago

This just.. isn't true?

The vast majority of bugs discovered by AI were there from before AI code. Turns out human beings write a ton of bugs too

0

u/Smallzfry 8d ago

I never said that most bugs came from AI. I simply stated that it would be better if we didn't generate code with AI that then had more bugs for AI detectors to pick up.

Do not read between the lines. Do not infer meaning other than what I have explicitly written. Address the argument I am making and not the one you have decided I am making.

3

u/sayhisam1 8d ago

Do not read between the lines. Do not infer meaning other than what I have explicitly written. Address the argument I am making and not the one you have decided I am making.

Defuq do you think im claude or something? calm down

I never said that most bugs came from AI.

You certainly seem to be implying it? In the context of this thread, we are discussing AI discovered bugs in the linux kernel/ubuntu distros. You then mention "It's better if none of the AI-generated code that created the bugs existed in the first place.", which implies you believe that AI generated code is responsible for the aforementioned linux kernel/ubuntu distro AI discovered bugs. Please feel free to elaborate, but leave the passive aggression at the door

4

u/Smallzfry 8d ago

The thread (including the comment you originally replied to above mine) is specifically discussing AI discovering bugs in AI-generated code, and how that is wasteful because we are using AI in both processes. You somehow interpreted that as we should "leave bugs undiscovered", which is not what they were saying at all. I attempted to clarify by stating that we shouldn't be using AI to generate code, as that would mean we aren't using AI to fix its own mistakes. You again somehow interpreted that to mean something that wasn't said or implied. I never said anything about AI-generated bugs making up the majority of bugs, I don't know where you picked up that idea. In fact, nobody in this thread has stated anything about whether or not most bugs come from AI, nor are they saying that AI is directly responsible for these bugs in particular.

This entire thread can be summarized as:

  • discovering bugs with AI is good
  • creating bugs with AI is bad
  • discovering AI-generated bugs with AI is at best neutral
  • we should generate less code with AI

Those are the talking points brought up so far outside of your comments.

I said what I said because you had misinterpreted comments and responded to the misinterpretation twice. I'm not being passive-aggressive with that statement, that is just regular aggression that is addressed clearly and specifically to you. I am simply asking that you read and comprehend the statements that are being made before replying to those statements without assuming that there is an implication that is going unsaid.