Now that’s a heel turn if I’ve ever seen one.
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/74818680
https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2026/08/msg00041.html
Now that’s a heel turn if I’ve ever seen one.
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/74818680
https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2026/08/msg00041.html
Well, what exactly did the AI do?
If Linus said, “fix the kernel” and the LLM generated 1,000 lines of code that he dropped in, saw it was working, and called it a day, then that would be a problem.
If Linux said, “Where is the problem?” and LLM told him and then he fixed it himself, that’s not a problem.
I don´t have a problem with LLM even generating code, I have a problem with programmers not understanding their craft and publishing code they don’t fully understand.
The problem is that practically you need to take a hard line because how are you supposed whether something is unexamined slop or if it’s been fully understood by a human? The only way to be sure a human understood it is to be sure a human wrote it, so blanket generative AI bans make sense.
In this case it’s a two line change: change to round down instead of round up. I suppose it’s the latter where the AI assisted him in identifying which line should be changed.
https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/818bebeb63dd6bf5f4e07e145f6cdbace520a34c
Absolutely unacceptable. I’m downloading Haiku right now.
You should do that anyway.
Here is a more detail article about what actually happened
https://www.xda-developers.com/linus-torvalds-fixed-a-linux-bug-using-ai-highlighting-both-the-strengths-and-weaknesses-of-the-new-tech/
It sounds like AI helped find the issue and write NOTES about it, but Linus explains he basically had to force the AI assistant because it kept on giving up. Linus wrote the fix himself.