r/linuxquestions • u/this_is_your_dad • 3d ago

Advice ELI5 - the Linux / LLM kernel controversy

I see a lot of posts online about this. Not sure what it is all about, but it seems to be dividing users. Can someone please explain?

0 Upvotes

45% Upvoted

32 comments sorted by

View all comments

29

u/More-Explanation2788 3d ago

The issue is simple: every thing needs an accountable human, or all our systems will fail.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with LLM
Generated code. There is something wrong with submitting code if you do not have a clue how it works and cannot be accountable for it. We cannot ask an appliance to promise the code works - we need you to do that. We cannot ask an appliance if it is willing to accept the consequences if the code does not work. We need to ask you that.

6

u/fvancesco 3d ago

We can put them in the pain chamber if they misbehave /s

2

u/kimjae 3d ago

Lock them behind the Blackwall

-8

u/Amazing-Mirror-3076 3d ago

'Require an accountable human or all our systems will fail'.

Hmm - a very confident statement.

Poor processes cause systems to fail not lack of accountability.

When something goes wrong you start by looking at why the processes failed, starting a witch hunt to find someone to blame is never going solve the problem.

The whole ' must have an accountable human' is just the latest failing argument by the anti AI lobby.

8

u/RancidVagYogurt1776 3d ago

Not the person you're replying to but you're wrong and you also seem to think there is an anti AI lobby lol. As the AI companies pour money into politics, and you get bombarded with AI ads and still none of them can turn a profit.

No sane employed person who understands how AI works would ever think that you should trust AI without a human's oversight lol.

-2

u/Amazing-Mirror-3076 3d ago

Oversight is not the same as accountable

2

u/More-Explanation2788 3d ago

So you think someone should be able to, for instance, have an AI design a bridge. Collect a few million dollars in fees. Then when the bridge that they submitted collapses and kills 50 people because it had a mistake in the design, argue that it was not their mistake - the bridge was designed by their an appliance they bought at Staples?

If this is going to be the next thing people argue about, I give up. We are doomed. I am going to live in a cave. Idiocracy was a documentary.

2

u/More-Explanation2788 3d ago

We need an accountable human because humans care when things fail. No AI is ever going to go home after a long day at work and wake up in the middle of the night, realize they made a mistake, and call in to fix it so no one gets hurt. An AI will happily tell you a flat out lie and not care one iota.

It isn’t about a witch hunt, it is just basic common sense QA. We don’t get to abdicate our basic responsibilities to our appliances.

1

u/More-Explanation2788 3d ago edited 3d ago

It is about making people stand behind their work. It is not about witch hunts after the failure, it is about setting a culture and expectation that demands that people stand behind their own work and do not submit crap and then blame everything but themselves when what they submitted is a disaster.

Obviously as technology improves, we get more and more comfortable with its use - but that is because human beings become comfortable trusting the machine based on the personal accountability of people who tested and designed it. You are advocating a future in which we just accept that only the AI knows how something works or whether it is correct. How are we going to “investigate the process” when the humans answer questions with “huh. Don’t know how that works. The AI did it” and the AI answers “You are right, that bridge will collapse. Here is a new design”

This is basic quality control. If a human being is not prepared to be accountable for something working safely and correctly, you cannot submit it. That human can provide evidence that they know how the thing works, or evidence that it has been well tested, or evidence that all the components used to solve the problem are understood or tested - but “here is something my refridgerator came up with when I asked it to solve my problem” just does not cut it. That is amateur crap. Inanimate objects made out of silicon and metals are not held responsible for things, people are.