Don't compilers have some guarantee of behaviours? I.e even if you don't know exactly what instructions and order the compiler generates there is a guarantee that it is computationally/mathematically equivalent to the statements you wrote. Otherwise it would be a pretty terrible compiler. That's a pretty big jump to writing instructions you don't understand, since LLMs can't make the same guarantees about a prompt/request.

Our thoughts and prayers are with Linus and his family at this difficult and tragic time.

I don't know... tools made by companies who can't wait to get in bed with the Pentagon to kill brown people around the world would seem to be toxic af.

This is a seriously weak and narrow argument. First off, the parallel drawn with existing tools is shallow. When was the last time an editor or a compiler promised to replace employees? Which of those notably accelerates climate catastrophe? Which one of those is the biggest theft of labor in the history of humanity? Everything is political. Externalizing the social and environmental cost of the major LLMs is taking a clear stance in favour of the late stage capitalistic tech empires currently taking shape.

Comparing AI to traditional tools is a bad faith argument and it's a bummer to see Linus fall for it.

Lol, I could kind of understand (not really support) his use of AI. While I doubt it's something you can do for long without starting to make compromises, people who were a really good programmers before will probably use it responsibly for a while, until their skills inevitably erode and (more importantly) their willpower slowly runs out.

But this argument made me loose all my respect for him. It's so utterly stupid. I hate it when i have to check my assembly code line by line, because it's not guaranteed that the compiler will compile the same code I've written deterministically, and basically just randomizes what it outputs. Or when my editor does not save what I typed, and instead decides based on a random language statistics what to actually save, so I have to double-check my text word-by-word every time.

Oh, wait. No, because the tools are deterministic, and that doesn't happen. But of course, adding randomness into your workflow, where you have to focus and review everything line-by-line, is the same as using deterministic tools, lol.

Won't anyone think of the environment or small communities? AI is a nice-to-have, not an essential. We need to stop developing technology without thinking long term about the world we live in. We can't use the "oh we didn't know" excuse anymore.

Why does everyone who starts using AI always devolve into posting like this?

I thought it was devastating to lose Steve Yegge to AI psychosis. But damn. This is... unspeakably bad. Like if the guy in charge of the CDC decided Tylenol caused autism or like if the guy who controls the U.S. military decided it was a good idea to bomb Iran.

This might get me banned here but I mostly agree with him

AI is a tool and the problem world wide is that nearly everyone is using the tool wrong

But used right, it can be a huge benefit. We know how deeply checked and tested all code is (who doesn't remember the continuous Linus rants?) so why does it matter if submitted code covers a bug that was discovered through AI, or even written by AI? As long as the code checkers know and understand what happens, I dont see the problem with the code having been written by a tool

Obligatory AI doesn't exist, its LLM's, and LLM's are tools, and tools are fine as long as you use them well.

If companies suddenly started making two meter long chainsaws and people started running around with these chainsaws cutting little girls in half, then yeah, people would rightly question if we shouldn't ban those tools too.

Force AI companies to be responsible for how their products are used and wait to see how fast things would get better.

And for developers: as long as every commit is reviewed and checked by humans, to me its just another tool being used to make Linux better

For those arguing the water of energy and the theft of intellectual property, it's the same point: governments need to put rules in place to control the stupid growth of data centers, AI companies must be held yo account for the data they've stolen, absolutely. However, that doesn't mean that LLM's are tools without any use

He's drunk the AI Kool-Aid.

Well, it was nice while it lasted.

*slaps an orange flag over the tux sticker on my laptop*

2027 will be the year of the NetBSD desktop, guys!