2026-10-15 22:37 UTC
Replies (6)
-
@Dirk@lemmy.ml 2026-10-15 23:17
Fuck. Let’s hope for a slop-free fork or the old man changing his mind on this bullshit.
-
@geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 2026-10-15 23:26
Linus going beastmmode " Linus Torvalds responded with an emphatic rejection of tool usage declarations. He wrote: What you are about is something entirely different. It has nothing to do with “expectations”, and it has everything to do with your hangups. I don’t understand this whole idiotic concept of “don’t use AI for X”. Here’s a new rule just for you: don’t use compilers for any of your kernel submissions. Because if you can’t show that you really understand what the machine is actually doing by writing your code in assembler, then I don’t want to see your code contribution. You clearly aren’t competent if you can’t write it that way. And btw, you had better not use an editor to write that commit message either. Because I need you to show me that you can actually write a good commit message without using tools that make it easy to backspace and hide the mistakes you made while typing. Ok? Because otherwise those tool-assisted commits of yours clearly aren’t showing that you know what you are doing. Do you not see how UTTERLY STUPID those kinds of rules would be? So no. We’re not going to make stupid rules that say “you can’t use tools for X”. The kind of expectations I have is that people do their best and I expect people to understand what they are doing. But that understanding has very little to do with what tools they use. And quite honestly, in my experience, the people I respect and call intelligent are not the ones that shy away from using new and interesting tools. ® "
-
@Strit@lemmy.linuxuserspace.show 2026-10-16 05:30
I don’t mind people using AI tools to code for them. As long as they understadn the code when they submit it and can fix it, if there are errors/faults in it before or after it has been merged.
-
@SocialistVibes01@lemmy.ml 2026-10-16 07:54
Linuslop Rustokenvalds
-
@OctopusNemeses@lemmy.world 2026-10-16 11:41
This was only keeping honest people honest.
-
@KeithD@lemmy.nz 2026-10-16 11:55
If the code is obvious crap, it doesn’t matter if AI was involved. If the code is perfectly obviously fine, it doesn’t (directly) matter if AI was involved. In the grey area in between, if someone doesn’t say AI was involved it might mean AI was used undisclosed to vibe code the result from beginning to end. If someone said AI was involved, it might mean AI was used solely to speed up testing to track down the cause of the bug. In the former case, you’ll get nothing useful out of the submitter; in the latter case the submitter can engage usefully in pushback on their proposed flawed fix. In neither case did the AI disclosure (or lack thereof) actually help. And that’s more or less where this news comes from - the tool usage disclosure turned out to not be useful, partly due to the vagueness of the method of disclosure (a tag in the commit message), partly due to people not reliably following the requirement, so they decided to stop requiring it. I’m not going to start using AI voluntarily any time soon, but I’m also not going to start panicking that the kernel is suddenly completely turned into vibe coded AI slop like so many crazy people seem to have been doing lately.