▲ 180 ▼ Linus Torvalds posts his first AI-assisted patch to the Linux kernel, synthetic test clocks 23x performance leap — the bossman makes use of AI tooling himself after issuing clear pro-AI directives (www.tomshardware.com) submitted 1 day ago by Ek-Hou-Van-Braai@piefed.social to c/technology@lemmy.world 128 comments fedilink hide all child comments cross-posted from: https://piefed.social/c/linux@programming.dev/p/2509642/linus-torvalds-posts-his-first-ai-assisted-patch-to-the-linux-kernel-synthetic-test-clo
[+] joey_builds@eviltoast.org 85 points 1 day ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (15 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 21 points 1 day ago (3 children) reading code you didn't write is genuinely more tiring than writing it What I keep saying. Good take except that you don't use "AI" tooling, you use copyright evasion slop tooling. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] AppleTea@lemmy.zip 1 point 16 hours ago (2 children) I thought code couldn't be copywritten? It's instructions, isn't it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] WolfLink@sh.itjust.works 13 points 16 hours ago Half a century of companies suing each other over code licenses suggests otherwise permalink fedilink source parent [–] DrunkenDuckling@lemmus.org 5 points 13 hours ago Instructions can be copywritten just like recipes can. Code is just a recipe for computer brains permalink fedilink source parent [–] Orygin@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 day ago (4 children) Linus knows this codebase better than anyone alive Does he? Is it even possible to know the entirety of the Linux kernel within one head? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] bizzle@lemmy.world 28 points 1 day ago (3 children) Does one need to know the entirety in their head to know it better than anyone else? If not Linus, who? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Orygin@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 day ago (1 child) I'd argue the people who wrote the code for the various subsystems know more about it than the guys who "just" review and merge them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] bizzle@lemmy.world 8 points 21 hours ago That's a fair point that I hadn't considered permalink fedilink source parent [–] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world -1 points 1 day ago He's spiraling downward, so even if he once lnew the kernel best, I am sure he no longer does by a long shot. permalink fedilink source parent [+] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev -7 points 1 day ago (5 children) Verifying LLM code isn't necessarily harder than verifying a human PR. I hope that this also boosts automated test tooling so that it also gets easier to test these PRs, since the focus will shift to review rather than writing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] partofthevoice@lemmy.zip 16 points 1 day ago* (4 children) Verifying 10 pounds of incoherent architectural choices and over engineered submodules is certainly harder than reviewing tee bits of coherent human work. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 0 points 5 hours ago (1 child) Sure, that's why I said "not necessarily". LLMs can be misused and made to do dumb shit too. But I have seen plenty of bullshit come from human developers too. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] partofthevoice@lemmy.zip 2 points 4 hours ago* LLMs make dumb shit by default. Even Linus had a race condition caught in review when he used AI to bulldoze his way through a feature. Agentic loops have major flaws which humans don’t, a tradeoff you seem to keep ignoring while you suggest that developers and agents are comparable in their output quality. The only comparison is, at surface value, they both produce code. Deeper than that, there are plenty of tradeoffs. Yes tradeoffs in code quality, project quality, maintainability, technical debt, … you need to be a good programmer to get a good project out of an agent — and even that isn’t enough at times. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Railcar8095@lemmy.world 1 point 1 day ago (1 child) And verifying 10 pounds of incoherent architectural choices and over engineered submodules of human work is certainly harder than reviewing tee bits of coherent agent work. You are? I can also make false dichotomy fallacies! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] partofthevoice@lemmy.zip 11 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) The difference is that AI is prone to this issue, even a single agentic process. Humans only really run into this issue with large, disorganized teams. Humans burn out. https://maevyn.codes/decoherence edit: hold up. Presenting as though what I said works in reverse, verifying 10 pounds of incoherent architectural choices and over engineered submodules of human work is certainly harder than reviewing tee bits of coherent agent work. as though agentic and human contribution is equatable… wouldn’t that be false equivalency? Tisk tisk… Human work is not swappable with agentic work without tradeoffs, which is kind of why I was making a point at all. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 21 points 1 day ago (3 children) reading code you didn't write is genuinely more tiring than writing it What I keep saying. Good take except that you don't use "AI" tooling, you use copyright evasion slop tooling. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] AppleTea@lemmy.zip 1 point 16 hours ago (2 children) I thought code couldn't be copywritten? It's instructions, isn't it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] WolfLink@sh.itjust.works 13 points 16 hours ago Half a century of companies suing each other over code licenses suggests otherwise permalink fedilink source parent [–] DrunkenDuckling@lemmus.org 5 points 13 hours ago Instructions can be copywritten just like recipes can. Code is just a recipe for computer brains permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AppleTea@lemmy.zip 1 point 16 hours ago (2 children) I thought code couldn't be copywritten? It's instructions, isn't it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] WolfLink@sh.itjust.works 13 points 16 hours ago Half a century of companies suing each other over code licenses suggests otherwise permalink fedilink source parent [–] DrunkenDuckling@lemmus.org 5 points 13 hours ago Instructions can be copywritten just like recipes can. Code is just a recipe for computer brains permalink fedilink source parent
[–] WolfLink@sh.itjust.works 13 points 16 hours ago Half a century of companies suing each other over code licenses suggests otherwise permalink fedilink source parent
[–] DrunkenDuckling@lemmus.org 5 points 13 hours ago Instructions can be copywritten just like recipes can. Code is just a recipe for computer brains permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Orygin@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 day ago (4 children) Linus knows this codebase better than anyone alive Does he? Is it even possible to know the entirety of the Linux kernel within one head? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] bizzle@lemmy.world 28 points 1 day ago (3 children) Does one need to know the entirety in their head to know it better than anyone else? If not Linus, who? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Orygin@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 day ago (1 child) I'd argue the people who wrote the code for the various subsystems know more about it than the guys who "just" review and merge them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] bizzle@lemmy.world 8 points 21 hours ago That's a fair point that I hadn't considered permalink fedilink source parent [–] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world -1 points 1 day ago He's spiraling downward, so even if he once lnew the kernel best, I am sure he no longer does by a long shot. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] bizzle@lemmy.world 28 points 1 day ago (3 children) Does one need to know the entirety in their head to know it better than anyone else? If not Linus, who? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Orygin@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 day ago (1 child) I'd argue the people who wrote the code for the various subsystems know more about it than the guys who "just" review and merge them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] bizzle@lemmy.world 8 points 21 hours ago That's a fair point that I hadn't considered permalink fedilink source parent [–] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world -1 points 1 day ago He's spiraling downward, so even if he once lnew the kernel best, I am sure he no longer does by a long shot. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Orygin@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 day ago (1 child) I'd argue the people who wrote the code for the various subsystems know more about it than the guys who "just" review and merge them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] bizzle@lemmy.world 8 points 21 hours ago That's a fair point that I hadn't considered permalink fedilink source parent
[–] bizzle@lemmy.world 8 points 21 hours ago That's a fair point that I hadn't considered permalink fedilink source parent
[–] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world -1 points 1 day ago He's spiraling downward, so even if he once lnew the kernel best, I am sure he no longer does by a long shot. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev -7 points 1 day ago (5 children) Verifying LLM code isn't necessarily harder than verifying a human PR. I hope that this also boosts automated test tooling so that it also gets easier to test these PRs, since the focus will shift to review rather than writing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] partofthevoice@lemmy.zip 16 points 1 day ago* (4 children) Verifying 10 pounds of incoherent architectural choices and over engineered submodules is certainly harder than reviewing tee bits of coherent human work. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 0 points 5 hours ago (1 child) Sure, that's why I said "not necessarily". LLMs can be misused and made to do dumb shit too. But I have seen plenty of bullshit come from human developers too. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] partofthevoice@lemmy.zip 2 points 4 hours ago* LLMs make dumb shit by default. Even Linus had a race condition caught in review when he used AI to bulldoze his way through a feature. Agentic loops have major flaws which humans don’t, a tradeoff you seem to keep ignoring while you suggest that developers and agents are comparable in their output quality. The only comparison is, at surface value, they both produce code. Deeper than that, there are plenty of tradeoffs. Yes tradeoffs in code quality, project quality, maintainability, technical debt, … you need to be a good programmer to get a good project out of an agent — and even that isn’t enough at times. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Railcar8095@lemmy.world 1 point 1 day ago (1 child) And verifying 10 pounds of incoherent architectural choices and over engineered submodules of human work is certainly harder than reviewing tee bits of coherent agent work. You are? I can also make false dichotomy fallacies! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] partofthevoice@lemmy.zip 11 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) The difference is that AI is prone to this issue, even a single agentic process. Humans only really run into this issue with large, disorganized teams. Humans burn out. https://maevyn.codes/decoherence edit: hold up. Presenting as though what I said works in reverse, verifying 10 pounds of incoherent architectural choices and over engineered submodules of human work is certainly harder than reviewing tee bits of coherent agent work. as though agentic and human contribution is equatable… wouldn’t that be false equivalency? Tisk tisk… Human work is not swappable with agentic work without tradeoffs, which is kind of why I was making a point at all. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] partofthevoice@lemmy.zip 16 points 1 day ago* (4 children) Verifying 10 pounds of incoherent architectural choices and over engineered submodules is certainly harder than reviewing tee bits of coherent human work. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 0 points 5 hours ago (1 child) Sure, that's why I said "not necessarily". LLMs can be misused and made to do dumb shit too. But I have seen plenty of bullshit come from human developers too. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] partofthevoice@lemmy.zip 2 points 4 hours ago* LLMs make dumb shit by default. Even Linus had a race condition caught in review when he used AI to bulldoze his way through a feature. Agentic loops have major flaws which humans don’t, a tradeoff you seem to keep ignoring while you suggest that developers and agents are comparable in their output quality. The only comparison is, at surface value, they both produce code. Deeper than that, there are plenty of tradeoffs. Yes tradeoffs in code quality, project quality, maintainability, technical debt, … you need to be a good programmer to get a good project out of an agent — and even that isn’t enough at times. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Railcar8095@lemmy.world 1 point 1 day ago (1 child) And verifying 10 pounds of incoherent architectural choices and over engineered submodules of human work is certainly harder than reviewing tee bits of coherent agent work. You are? I can also make false dichotomy fallacies! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] partofthevoice@lemmy.zip 11 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) The difference is that AI is prone to this issue, even a single agentic process. Humans only really run into this issue with large, disorganized teams. Humans burn out. https://maevyn.codes/decoherence edit: hold up. Presenting as though what I said works in reverse, verifying 10 pounds of incoherent architectural choices and over engineered submodules of human work is certainly harder than reviewing tee bits of coherent agent work. as though agentic and human contribution is equatable… wouldn’t that be false equivalency? Tisk tisk… Human work is not swappable with agentic work without tradeoffs, which is kind of why I was making a point at all. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 0 points 5 hours ago (1 child) Sure, that's why I said "not necessarily". LLMs can be misused and made to do dumb shit too. But I have seen plenty of bullshit come from human developers too. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] partofthevoice@lemmy.zip 2 points 4 hours ago* LLMs make dumb shit by default. Even Linus had a race condition caught in review when he used AI to bulldoze his way through a feature. Agentic loops have major flaws which humans don’t, a tradeoff you seem to keep ignoring while you suggest that developers and agents are comparable in their output quality. The only comparison is, at surface value, they both produce code. Deeper than that, there are plenty of tradeoffs. Yes tradeoffs in code quality, project quality, maintainability, technical debt, … you need to be a good programmer to get a good project out of an agent — and even that isn’t enough at times. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] partofthevoice@lemmy.zip 2 points 4 hours ago* LLMs make dumb shit by default. Even Linus had a race condition caught in review when he used AI to bulldoze his way through a feature. Agentic loops have major flaws which humans don’t, a tradeoff you seem to keep ignoring while you suggest that developers and agents are comparable in their output quality. The only comparison is, at surface value, they both produce code. Deeper than that, there are plenty of tradeoffs. Yes tradeoffs in code quality, project quality, maintainability, technical debt, … you need to be a good programmer to get a good project out of an agent — and even that isn’t enough at times. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Railcar8095@lemmy.world 1 point 1 day ago (1 child) And verifying 10 pounds of incoherent architectural choices and over engineered submodules of human work is certainly harder than reviewing tee bits of coherent agent work. You are? I can also make false dichotomy fallacies! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] partofthevoice@lemmy.zip 11 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) The difference is that AI is prone to this issue, even a single agentic process. Humans only really run into this issue with large, disorganized teams. Humans burn out. https://maevyn.codes/decoherence edit: hold up. Presenting as though what I said works in reverse, verifying 10 pounds of incoherent architectural choices and over engineered submodules of human work is certainly harder than reviewing tee bits of coherent agent work. as though agentic and human contribution is equatable… wouldn’t that be false equivalency? Tisk tisk… Human work is not swappable with agentic work without tradeoffs, which is kind of why I was making a point at all. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] partofthevoice@lemmy.zip 11 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) The difference is that AI is prone to this issue, even a single agentic process. Humans only really run into this issue with large, disorganized teams. Humans burn out. https://maevyn.codes/decoherence edit: hold up. Presenting as though what I said works in reverse, verifying 10 pounds of incoherent architectural choices and over engineered submodules of human work is certainly harder than reviewing tee bits of coherent agent work. as though agentic and human contribution is equatable… wouldn’t that be false equivalency? Tisk tisk… Human work is not swappable with agentic work without tradeoffs, which is kind of why I was making a point at all. permalink fedilink source parent