cm0002@infosec.pub to Linux@programming.dev · 8 days agoLinux kernel devs drop obligatory confession of AI tool usagewww.theregister.comexternal-linkmessage-square45linkfedilinkarrow-up1147arrow-down11
arrow-up1146arrow-down1external-linkLinux kernel devs drop obligatory confession of AI tool usagewww.theregister.comcm0002@infosec.pub to Linux@programming.dev · 8 days agomessage-square45linkfedilink
minus-squareOtter@lemmy.calinkfedilinkarrow-up15·8 days agoThe mailing list change the article is referring to: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20261009083137.3-1-sashal@kernel.org/ I wonder if the original rule was too broad and it was leading to noise? I’d prefer to have attribution when code is written, but not in all cases If someone uses an LLM to brainstorm or track down a bug, then confirms it and writes the fix by hand, adding attribution might end up being noise. Meanwhile if someone uses the LLM to write the fix, then that should get attribution
minus-squareNouvellalia@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up19arrow-down1·8 days agoLinus said it wasn’t working because “almost no one was using it”. Everyone was just lying because they were ashamed to admit they were using AI.
The mailing list change the article is referring to: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20261009083137.3-1-sashal@kernel.org/
I wonder if the original rule was too broad and it was leading to noise? I’d prefer to have attribution when code is written, but not in all cases
If someone uses an LLM to brainstorm or track down a bug, then confirms it and writes the fix by hand, adding attribution might end up being noise.
Meanwhile if someone uses the LLM to write the fix, then that should get attribution
Linus said it wasn’t working because “almost no one was using it”. Everyone was just lying because they were ashamed to admit they were using AI.