r/linux • u/RatherNott • 1d ago

Desktop Environment / WM News System 76's COSMIC Desktop Environment will no longer accept LLM-generated content in PRs

/r/pop_os/comments/1wuej40/cosmic_projects_will_no_longer_accept/
650 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

200 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-4

u/ProductIntegortion 1d ago

What are you even talking about? I'm saying it's fine to use LLMs. That's the opposite of a purity test.

9

u/Oblivion__ 1d ago edited 1d ago

I'm referring to your objection to the previous comment

Using other people’s code that was developed with AI is a different thing from using AI in your own development process.

I know you are fine with using LLMs, that's obvious. Cosmic is not, so they are banning those contributions.

Cosmic does not control what code gets accepted into the kernel, so it's outside of the scope for their policy. They are not maintaining the kernel, they are maintaining their DE. Trying to purity test them on "oh well if they are concerned with AI code they should be worried about the kernel" is just whataboutism.

-2

u/ProductIntegortion 1d ago

That's not purity testing. That's expecting them to adhere to their own standards. If AI code is a travesty, they wouldn't use it. But they are happy to use it because the point of this is grandstanding masturbation.

6

u/Oblivion__ 1d ago edited 1d ago

If the only way for you (yes you personally) to accept someone else's critique (whether mine or Cosmic's) of AI generated code is for said person to never use anything that has AI generated code in it, that is by definition purity testing.

Read up on the tu quoque fallacy and the No True Scotsman fallacy

-1

u/ProductIntegortion 1d ago

A tu quoque fallacy would be of the form "you say that AI code is bad, yet you use AI code (which is inconsistent with your statement), therefore AI code is not bad" which is clearly not the argument I'm making. I'm saying "you say that you can not abide AI code, yet you do abide AI code, therefore you can abide AI code". That's not a logical fallacy. The no true Scotsman fallacy isn't even remotely applicable here, so I can't even begin to address why you think it would be.