33
Linus Torvalds used AI to fix a Linux bug, and now LLM critics on Linux face an uncomfortable choice (www.xda-developers.com)
submitted 1 month ago by to c/linux@programming.dev
15 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2026/08/msg00041.html

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 17 points 1 month ago* (4 children)

I think “the submitter is entirely responsible for their code” is a very reasonable position.

Especially since I just don't see how it's possible to fully prevent people from using AI if they want to use it. Yes a lot of code might be more obvious and could be rejected with an "absolutely no AI policy" but some people will submit perfectly good code where AI was involved in some way.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 1 month ago* (2 children)

    Yes, that too.

    Incentivizing hiding LLM use would be a problem. Encouraging disclosure is good.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 1 month ago* (1 child)

    Plus if the general requirement is 'high quality code' then that automatically excludes the majority of LLM usage where people just vibe code it and rely heavily on the LLM to do the work. VS someone writing their own code while using an LLM to help find problems.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago*

    Well... IMO, there's a whole spectrum between "very rare LLM brianstorming/troubleshooting" and "I don't know how to code" vibe-coding, and Im not sure what the distribution looks like.

    Personally, I get LLMs to generate boilerplate, formatting, and functions, but manually write plenty and audit/assemble all the pieces myself. But I would not call myself a vibecoder; I loathe vibe coding.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent