Linus Torvalds used Claude Code to build a Linux page cache fix that hit 23x read throughput, but kernel reviewers found a race before anything merged.
The code still undergoes the exact same code review as before.
That’s not good enough, because it is well documented that AI often make mistakes and absolutely needs to undergo way stricter review.
It is also well documented that although you can achieve some results quickly, AI code also quickly becomes impossible to maintain.
If nobody understands the code, as it seems was the case here, and it is introduced anyway, the kernel is doomed to deteriorate.
My wife has already noticed deteriorating quality in Debian, with system hangs after they loosened the requirements for AI code. The quality of Debian now is lower than it has been in a decade!
Lol. That guy banned me from his community yesterday. He doesn’t want debate, he wants to be surrounded in yes men and it’s clear he has no idea how the kernel process works.
That was after I pointed out that submissions to the kernel go through a huge process to get to main
I actually checked, and I can’t find any evidence whatsoever he contributes code anywhere, and his blog is at best described as human slop. It’s fairly obvious that he already had a conclusion, and tried digging up anything to support it.
He basically thrives on rage bait
Well documented by who exactly? Show some examples please. Because in my own experience over the past year, I’ve resolved probably hundreds of bugs in our products and a lot of it was due to AI identifying logic bugs. It can produce crappy code, but I’ve also had to review some absolutely crap code too. The kernel team have been discussing providing official AI agents files and such to help the code match what they’re after
Nobody is generating AI code and simply pushing it to main lol. And, if you submit badly written code immediately, the team are going to spot it easily
Also, if you’re getting system hangs, there are so many possibilities for that. Define system hangs for starters. That could be anything, but it’s been the opposite of my experience. At best it’s anecdotal. At worst you have a gpu driver possibly with a single bug causing issues
I can’t remember the last time my nuc 14 pro plus hung for anything other than self stupidity
Or maybe his blog post falls apart completely by simply pointing out that AI isn’t approving code, code doesn’t go straight to main, and all code is manually code reviewed by human.
You really seem to believe that’s a good point, but it isn’t.
It is an extremely well documented fact that critical/independent thinking declines with use of AI, and you apparently have zero understanding of that fact.
Did you even read that 1 study you’re repeating, or just click the link
If you read the study, they ran the tests over 13 mins only. And, they didn’t keep retesting to see if results changed over time either. If that ran the test over an hour, both results may have ended up at similar levels (we don’t know because it only tested over a short time)
You need to learn to stop exaggerating or actually read crap instead of just the headline lol
I know it’s the same study we both (or presumably just myself) read, because it was the only one. I wouldn’t call that “extremely well” anything
The code still undergoes the exact same code review as before, because humans were the original slop coders.
The standards needed for code to be accepted haven’t changed at all. Even the code Linus personally is reviewed…
That’s not good enough, because it is well documented that AI often make mistakes and absolutely needs to undergo way stricter review.
It is also well documented that although you can achieve some results quickly, AI code also quickly becomes impossible to maintain.
If nobody understands the code, as it seems was the case here, and it is introduced anyway, the kernel is doomed to deteriorate.
My wife has already noticed deteriorating quality in Debian, with system hangs after they loosened the requirements for AI code. The quality of Debian now is lower than it has been in a decade!
Maybe you need to watch something like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ARF2KcDgc
Lol. That guy banned me from his community yesterday. He doesn’t want debate, he wants to be surrounded in yes men and it’s clear he has no idea how the kernel process works.
That was after I pointed out that submissions to the kernel go through a huge process to get to main
I actually checked, and I can’t find any evidence whatsoever he contributes code anywhere, and his blog is at best described as human slop. It’s fairly obvious that he already had a conclusion, and tried digging up anything to support it.
He basically thrives on rage bait
Well documented by who exactly? Show some examples please. Because in my own experience over the past year, I’ve resolved probably hundreds of bugs in our products and a lot of it was due to AI identifying logic bugs. It can produce crappy code, but I’ve also had to review some absolutely crap code too. The kernel team have been discussing providing official AI agents files and such to help the code match what they’re after
Nobody is generating AI code and simply pushing it to main lol. And, if you submit badly written code immediately, the team are going to spot it easily
Also, if you’re getting system hangs, there are so many possibilities for that. Define system hangs for starters. That could be anything, but it’s been the opposite of my experience. At best it’s anecdotal. At worst you have a gpu driver possibly with a single bug causing issues
I can’t remember the last time my nuc 14 pro plus hung for anything other than self stupidity
Maybe because you are making stupid ignorant comments.
Or maybe his blog post falls apart completely by simply pointing out that AI isn’t approving code, code doesn’t go straight to main, and all code is manually code reviewed by human.
And his blog is pages of slop.
You really seem to believe that’s a good point, but it isn’t.
It is an extremely well documented fact that critical/independent thinking declines with use of AI, and you apparently have zero understanding of that fact.
You seem to believe that’s a great response. At this point, you’re just arguing (which seems to be most of your Lemmy history).
If you want to argue that a journalist with a slop blog and no evidence of being a developer anywhere is credible, that’s up to you.
All I see is obviously bad journalism from a guy who wants attention…
Did you even read that 1 study you’re repeating, or just click the link
If you read the study, they ran the tests over 13 mins only. And, they didn’t keep retesting to see if results changed over time either. If that ran the test over an hour, both results may have ended up at similar levels (we don’t know because it only tested over a short time)
You need to learn to stop exaggerating or actually read crap instead of just the headline lol
I know it’s the same study we both (or presumably just myself) read, because it was the only one. I wouldn’t call that “extremely well” anything