Post #3837759
2026-07-15 16:13 UTC
Replies (9)
-
@axbom@axbom.me 2026-07-15 17:26
@tante@tldr.nettime.org Excellent as always tante. This for me is the core of Le Guin's The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas. https://axbom.com/omelas/
-
@d1ss0nanz@mastodon.social 2026-07-15 16:17
@tante@tldr.nettime.org they key point, "fork it", was not addressed.
-
@tante@tldr.nettime.org 2026-07-15 16:17
(Sorry, just a quick note, I'd love to write a longer piece on "useful" because it's such a harmful narrative)
-
@tezoatlipoca@mas.to 2026-07-15 16:28
@tante@tldr.nettime.org I make no claim to know how the man thinks, but I suspect no small part of this is a bit of FOSS realpolitik. Let's say Linus were to stand firm against use of AI use in the kernel. Commendable. But then the rate of commits remains stagnant. meanwhile some big institutional downstream kernel (say a consortium of Ubuntu and other for-profit distros) user goes and forks the kernel. Now there's the Linux Foundation kernel (kernel0) and several "AI friendly" kernels (kernelPrime) that get features added in more rapidly, customizable branches (kernel Lite, kernel Plus etc.) all enabled by rapid AI development. Complete with Ai induced sec vulns and just... bloat and shit. I'm not entirely sure that landscape is better. Don't get me wrong, I'm in no way excusing it. But I can sortof understand it. The "Adapt or die" mentality.
-
@avuko@infosec.exchange 2026-07-16 08:06
@tante@tldr.nettime.org If all you've known is privilege, accountability feels like punishment.
-
@andersgo@infosec.exchange 2026-07-16 08:07
@tante@tldr.nettime.org For me AI tools has so far been like a calculator where I not only double check my input, but I also have to double check the output.
-
@androcat@toot.cat 2026-07-16 12:47
@tante@tldr.nettime.org As I am exhausted by the very idea, I have not had the heart to check: Does he mean just the previously mentioned "using LLM code assistants for bug search" (which we might equate to spell checking) or does he mean "using LLM code assistants for code excretion" (which we can equate to autocorrect)?
-
@maxheadroom@hub.uckermark.social 2026-07-15 16:32
@tante@tldr.nettime.org I assume the discussion spun up around whether the Linux kernel should accept AI generated contributions. How would one practically avoid that? In your analogy of child labor the Kernel community would have to put out a statement that code written by means of child labor is not accepted in the Kernel. Reasonable. And the industries way of "ensuring" that is my having the contributor sign a piece of paper saying they don't use child labor. Would that be the same for AI generated code if the decision would be to not accept AI generated code? The code itself wouldn't be distinguishable from human written code. You'd just have to trust the person that they stand by their signature to not use AI tools for code generation.
-
@pare@kamu.social 2026-07-15 16:57
@tante@tldr.nettime.org Also, saying ’you can just fork it’ is just being mean and malicious. I’ve worked a bit with the Linux kernel and even wrote some code for it (proprietary, I think, not sure after 20 years), and I have done other software development. Technically, I could fork it, yes. In practice? No way I could do anything meaningful with it. It’d take years to even bootstrap a project around it. And the kernel is not the only piece of software I’d need to fork to get rid of ’AI’.