They got to him
- “I only care about the final results and the correctness”
- Looks inside
- Final results are shit and code is just slop
Ahhh, I love AI /s
His very first bug. Until this point, he had 100% error-free code. /s
That’s what code review is for lol.
Where is the story here?
LLMs make slop code faster than humans can meaningfully review. If you make LLMs the only review layer, then slop gets through because they have similar biases. Stop making slop.
Cool assumption. But pretty sure it’s not how things work at all but sounds great…
What actually happens is that you have a long list of multiple maintainers reviewing , and multiple branches for testing, and multiple layers of review too.
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/next/process/maintainers.html . See that long list of maintainers for a start.
The actual policy is that everything ends up getting reviewed by a human. If I post a patch, it doesn’t go straight to master
If it’s not being properly tested and maintained, it gets dropped irrespective of what it is (remember devfs?)
Also, I’m not sure about the kernel specifically, but on projects I submitted code to, they often wanted complex patches broken down if possible.
Where is the story here?
“AI bad. AI do bad thing. Let’s point and laugh at AI doing bad thing to delegitimize the technology in the public’s eyes.”
Meanwhile, at work, I interact with coding agents on a regular basis, and the results are pretty good. Then it goes through a local blind review by a more powerful agent, get pushed out to the company’s code review agent, which is designed to be as critical as possible, check the ticket details, make sure everything matches what the design plan says. Depending on the repo, it might even go through an extra security review.
Then, because we aren’t fucking stupid, it goes through the standard code review process by real developers. Sometimes they still find something, sometimes the agent code reviews found way more than a human can. Overall, I trust the current process over our previous one, where some guy spends barely two minutes looking at the code, rubberstamps it, and then QA discovers a few bugs that need fixing, because the damn code review wasn’t as through and critical as it should have been.
AI bad. Bugs never occurred when human built code. We had to come up with a completely new term, unknown in programming before, called “race condition”.
Linus probably uses AI effectively, but the question is how long until his skill deteriorate because of it.
I’d be more concerned with him and people of that generation aging out maintaining the project first, and newer generations not having the skills to begin with to carry it forward.
of that generation
Ouch.
I think ‘we’ have about 20 years left in us. That’s long enough for an entire new pet language to be born, surge, wane, and then die. …or 27 entirely new web frameworks.
Skill of what? If anything his skill of how not to fuck up will improve.
Amanda Caswell
Amanda Caswell is an AI journalist, certified prompt engineer, and technology commentator whose work and expertise have been featured on Fox News and CBS News.
certified prompt engineer 🤣
She gipity… If not she mine as well be. We are yammering over a techno fart.
Amanda Caswell is an AI journalisturd, certified prompturd engineer, and turdnology commentaturder whose slop and nonsense has been featured on Fox News and CBS News.
On Tuesday, he submitted a 10-patch series that delivered a 23-fold throughput improvement in a synthetic benchmark
Impressive, probably kind of like I can answer math questions very very fast.
Reviewers have since identified a race condition and raised concerns about memory reclamation.
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
which someone else should totally create
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
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.
So you’re saying the review process worked as designed?
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.
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.
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.
So, let me get this right. You’re disapproving on how things were handled based on your speculation of how it went?
Yes, but it’s bad because software has bugs.
AI written article
What do you base that claim on?
It says:Oct 14th, 2026 6:59pm by Amanda Caswell
Right there in your link, it says she’s AI:
Amanda Caswell is an AI journalist
/s
I believe it should be spelled “meat proxy”
I just saw someone call it “cuck coding” (vs “vibe coding”), because you just sit there.
This would make meat proxies Code Cucks instead.
“AI journalist” is just as confusing as “child killer”
Is it an AI pretending to be a journo (is it a child who’s a killer), or is it a journo writing about AI (is it a killer targeting children)?
Not really… “AI journalist” might refer to a plain old astroturfing spambot, or to one piloting a reverse centaur, but it’s still the same old spambot when it comes to it, and it’ll still be spewing the same worthless slop, so the distinction is mostly moot, merely making the latter option a bit more tragic.
English would prefer killer child instead of child killer for the former because killer can behave as a qualifier.
Similarly, AI can act as a qualifier and while sports journalist is valid, any journalist writing about AI code, AI agent, AI whatever must realize what AI journalist sounds like
word play is fun
Goddammit you had me there until the /s. 🤣
It’s just a super weird article. It goes into extreme detail randomly, mentioning specific function names and memory mechanisms, but doesn’t explain any of it.
This happens when an LLM reads a bunch of pages with stuff it doesn’t have much internal knowledge about, and then tries to summarize that into an article.
It’s either written by a LLM that’s been instructed to drag the little info it had forever, or written by a human that is very convincing at producing robotic, unnaturally articulated text.
Title, summary, first paragraph are basically the same sentence slightly reformulated, and then the rest is going back to every bit of it like a list of bullet points, almost failing to add anything valuable.
I found it painful to parse, and it really does not feel human-like.
it is a real person, but GPTZero gives it a 100/100, and given she’s a proud “prompt engineer” I’m inclined to believe she doesn’t do all the writing without… “assistance”.
This happens when an LLM reads a bunch of pages with stuff it doesn’t have much internal knowledge about, and then tries to summarize that into an article.
LLMs do not have knowledge about anything.
Tell me you don’t know how deep learning works without telling me you don’t know how deep learning works.
Tell me you have zero education in epistemology without telling me you have zero education in epistemology.
Not justification for the accusation.
Everything is possibly AI slob, that doesn’t justify calling everything AI slob.This comment is ai slop.
They called it Linux to celebrate the man. At what point do we have to change it to Ainux?
