It seems that after the initial AI-generated patches there’s been good discussion amongst the kernel devs about sorting out the issues, and a few revisions already that have tidied things up a bit.
So if after all that there ends up being a good performance improvement directly from a revised AI-created patch, what do I do with my pitchfork? Still raised angrily? Half-mast? Do I just let the torch smoulder?
Torvalds had spent 18 months running a broken version of his own fix for the page-cache reference-counting bottleneck, while other developers had encountered problems with their approaches.
The article mentions he had been working on solving the issue for 18 months already… so at least that long.
I’m still mad because the source is still tainted. You can guarantee that the contributions of unwilling people, { who 1) did not intend their work to be used by a for profit LLM, and 2) actively do not want their work used by an LLM at all }, is part of these changes.
Scraping isn’t reading, etc etc. But also when did we just stop respecting people’s wishes with the stuff they post? Like I made my own word scramble js script because a website owner didn’t get back to me on whether I could use theirs, even though the script is right there to copy paste.
These companies just did the yolo founder-disrupter impatient thing when they could have been chill and done this all legit.
Maybe it did, but apparently the code was not properly reviewed initially, so there could be other hidden problems.
Of course that’s the same for human made code, but there’s a problem in only judging code from how it performs, and not actually understanding the code. And that seems to be the situation with a lot of AI code.
100% that is the worst place to have the problem originate.
I have rarely disagreed with Linus Torvalds, and maybe I’m wrong, but I strongly disagree with him on this issue. Contributing code nobody understands cannot be a good thing.
Is it an understanding failure, an unexpected interaction, or just an existing issue now exposed? A 23x performance increase could very well expose an existing race condition that systems weren’t fast enough to run into.
People make mistakes. Software bugs existing at all is proof of this. This is certainly not the first time a change Torvalds approved has an issue, and it won’t be the last.
There’s a reason code is reviewed, and there’s a reason people still go through after it is approved and verify. The process is working exactly as designed, the way it has for decades before AI coding.
Expecting absolute perfection is ridiculous, the anti-AI circlejerk acting like only AI fucks up just makes them look ridiculous. Any developer could have developed this fix, and there would be no article. Nothing in this issue is specific to AI usage and treating it like it is somehow special just undermines arguments against AI slop and vibe coding in general.
Not based on speculation, based on numerous analysis of the problems with using AI code you don’t understand.
Clearly Linus failed to understand the code, otherwise he wouldn’t have suggested it for submission.
You seem to have a problem with criticism of Linus, is it a religious thing?
Impressive, probably kind of like I can answer math questions very very fast.
That what I thought, I can answer math questions fast, but I don’t claim to be able to answer them correctly.
It seems that after the initial AI-generated patches there’s been good discussion amongst the kernel devs about sorting out the issues, and a few revisions already that have tidied things up a bit.
So if after all that there ends up being a good performance improvement directly from a revised AI-created patch, what do I do with my pitchfork? Still raised angrily? Half-mast? Do I just let the torch smoulder?
You have to vow to use a new fork (which someone else should totally create) which does not contain this one specific patch.
Man, people really don’t like systemd
Congratulations and thank you for volunteering! I look forward to your repo release. You are never allowed to stop maintaining this fork.
And cause more environmental harm through inefficient tech?
Based
Wonder how much time it had taken without AI
The article mentions he had been working on solving the issue for 18 months already… so at least that long.
I’m still mad because the source is still tainted. You can guarantee that the contributions of unwilling people, { who 1) did not intend their work to be used by a for profit LLM, and 2) actively do not want their work used by an LLM at all }, is part of these changes.
Scraping isn’t reading, etc etc. But also when did we just stop respecting people’s wishes with the stuff they post? Like I made my own word scramble js script because a website owner didn’t get back to me on whether I could use theirs, even though the script is right there to copy paste.
These companies just did the yolo founder-disrupter impatient thing when they could have been chill and done this all legit.
So you’re saying the review process worked as designed?
Maybe it did, but apparently the code was not properly reviewed initially, so there could be other hidden problems.
Of course that’s the same for human made code, but there’s a problem in only judging code from how it performs, and not actually understanding the code. And that seems to be the situation with a lot of AI code.
And particularly disturbing when the human understanding failure is from the original and lead Linux developer.
100% that is the worst place to have the problem originate.
I have rarely disagreed with Linus Torvalds, and maybe I’m wrong, but I strongly disagree with him on this issue. Contributing code nobody understands cannot be a good thing.
Is it an understanding failure, an unexpected interaction, or just an existing issue now exposed? A 23x performance increase could very well expose an existing race condition that systems weren’t fast enough to run into.
People make mistakes. Software bugs existing at all is proof of this. This is certainly not the first time a change Torvalds approved has an issue, and it won’t be the last.
There’s a reason code is reviewed, and there’s a reason people still go through after it is approved and verify. The process is working exactly as designed, the way it has for decades before AI coding.
Expecting absolute perfection is ridiculous, the anti-AI circlejerk acting like only AI fucks up just makes them look ridiculous. Any developer could have developed this fix, and there would be no article. Nothing in this issue is specific to AI usage and treating it like it is somehow special just undermines arguments against AI slop and vibe coding in general.
I’d say do better but that’s not likely to happen.
So, let me get this right. You’re disapproving on how things were handled based on your speculation of how it went?
Not based on speculation, based on numerous analysis of the problems with using AI code you don’t understand.
Clearly Linus failed to understand the code, otherwise he wouldn’t have suggested it for submission.
You seem to have a problem with criticism of Linus, is it a religious thing?
Only while there are still reviewers who care to review the slop. Which is a rare breed and will quickly soon vanish.
I bet some projects will get more tolerance and love than others, based on value and utility. The kernel will get more, and Systemd will get less.
Yes, but it’s bad because software has bugs.