At the Linux Foundation’s Open Source Summit, the Linux creator argued that AI-written code claims are misleading — and warned that a wave of low-quality, AI-generated bug reports is quietly burning out the maintainers who keep open source running.
[…]
Speaking on stage, Torvalds said the framing misses an obvious historical parallel. Compilers have translated essentially all shipped source code into machine code for decades, he noted, yet no engineer describes their software as “compiler-written.” AI, in his view, belongs in the same category — a powerful productivity layer sitting on top of human design and understanding, not a replacement for it.
The topic of mantaining code around AI PRs has it’s place but I ain’t feeling it after that declaration to disregard far more significant problems around AI (““it’s a tool””). I ain’t in the mood for silly word games about compilers.
Personally, I think even if AI tools can possibly used meaningfully and productively by experienced Linux kernel developers - people which have decades of experience with scrutinizing complex code that other programmers wrote -
… it will likely be an utter disaster in hands of average companies which are already ridden by technical debt, have no specs, no testing, no designed architecture, and will try to use AI to simply cut more corners and produce a higher volume of far worse code with cheaper hires. This will not end well for them.
(There is the argument that AI already “produces code that is better than typical code from the average mid/junior developer”. I do not think this holds water, because it can’t produce good code alone - this returns to the core of Torvalds argument.)
@HaraldvonBlauzahn@feddit.org , may I ask why do you change the title so awfully it does not only not state the same as the article but misleads it?
Agreed. This post’s current title does not appear in the link, and the link does not contain a quote that can be remotely matched to this post’s title.
From the article:
https://pbxscience.com/torvalds-ai-is-the-new-compiler-not-the-new-programmer/
Speaking on stage, Torvalds said the framing misses an obvious historical parallel. Compilers have translated essentially all shipped source code into machine code for decades, he noted, yet no engineer describes their software as “compiler-written.” AI, in his view, belongs in the same category — a powerful productivity layer sitting on top of human design and understanding, not a replacement for it.Linux & Unix
“When I see people saying, ‘Hey, 99% of our code is written by AI,’ I literally get angry, because those same people — I can pretty much guarantee — that 100% of their code is written by compilers.”
The title is the URL of the link, plus the actual title of the article.
Indeed. Thank you very much! The OP has likely no clue what the article is about even.
The OP has likely no clue what the article is about even.
Jumping directly to an ad hominem attack leaves the inpression that you don’t have any meaningful argument in respect to the subject of the article.
and the link does not contain a quote that can be remotely matched to this post’s title.
That’s not the case - first part pharaphrases Torvalds, second part cites him.
Torvalds was careful to frame this as a correction of language rather than a rejection of the technology itself.
You “paraphrased” into oblivion the very thing Mr. Torvalds was trying to be careful about, contorting it into click bait rather than the nuance that he and the article are trying to get across.
From the article:
Speaking on stage, Torvalds said the framing misses an obvious historical parallel. Compilers have translated essentially all shipped source code into machine code for decades, he noted, yet no engineer describes their software as “compiler-written.” AI, in his view, belongs in the same category — a powerful productivity layer sitting on top of human design and understanding, not a replacement for it.Linux & Unix
“When I see people saying, ‘Hey, 99% of our code is written by AI,’ I literally get angry, because those same people — I can pretty much guarantee — that 100% of their code is written by compilers.”
It is first the web pages title suggestion (see the URL if the link) followed by the title of the article.
And I don’t think the first part is awful - it sums up the main idea in few words.
See existing discussion in the technology@lemmy.world post, submitted by somebody else.
Edit: Whether the site-suggested page title in the first part is really a good title is somewhat subjective and therefore debatable. The question is does it sum up precisely a main topic of the article?
Note that Torvalds does not claim that AI tools necessarily speed up code generation. This is not how they actually use it in the Linux kernel. They use it for bug detection.
Then why the title? Did Linus Torvalds really say “AI” was the “new compiler”?
I think the notion that AI tools are actually intelligent and AI does the important work while the programmer only does tidy up work is manipulative framing.
The same as with many kinds of automation which denies the human part of the work, for better exploitation. It reminds me in self-service cash registers which are said to be fully automated - but the customer does now the work of the cashier and is given the responsibility of the employee.
Nobody would say a book itself is smart, in spite of printed books being a powerful technology, and some books containing deep thoughts. Nobody would say a photographic camera does the actual work of a painter. It is a tool which can help to create art in the hands of an artist
