Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AI assistance when contributing to the Linux kernel

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 464 posts

Re: AI assistance when contributing to the Linux kernel

#201

Post by altmanaltman »

KaiLetov wrote: post #169

The policy makes sense as a liability shield, but it doesn't address the actual problem, which is review bandwidth. A human signs off on AI-generated code they don't fully understand, the patch looks fine, it gets merged. Six months later someone finds a subtle bug in an edge case no reviewer would've caught because the code was "too clean."

I mean the same can happen with human-written code no? Reviewer signs off on it and subtle bug in edge case no one saw?

Or you mean the velocity of commits will be so much that reviewers will start making more mistakes?

Re: AI assistance when contributing to the Linux kernel

#202

Post by contraposit »

goatlover wrote: post #200
cinntaile wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people are just against change, that's nothing new. If Linus was like them, he would never have started linux in the first place.

Are they against change in general, or certain kinds of change? Remember when social media was seen as near universal good kind of progress? Not so much now.

This is like blaming a knife as being a killer weapon. Social media is inherently good if owners of the platforms allow for good interactions to take place. But given the mismatch between incentives alignment, we don't have nice things.

Re: AI assistance when contributing to the Linux kernel

#203

Post by cinntaile »

goatlover wrote: post #200
cinntaile wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people are just against change, that's nothing new. If Linus was like them, he would never have started linux in the first place.

Are they against change in general, or certain kinds of change? Remember when social media was seen as near universal good kind of progress? Not so much now.

Social media has never been seen as a universal positive force? It's the same with AI. It has good and bad aspects as does any technology that has an impact on this scale, AI will arguably have a much bigger impact imo.

People are generally against change that forces them to change the way they used to do things. I'm sure most will have their reasons why they are against this particular change, but I don't think it will affect anything. The genie is out of the bottle, AI is here to stay. You either adapt or you will slowly wither away.

Re: AI assistance when contributing to the Linux kernel

#204

Post by Luker88 »

newsoftheday wrote: post #10

> All code must be compatible with GPL-2.0-only How can you guarantee that will happen when AI has been trained a world full of multiple licenses and even closed source material without permission of the copyright owners...I confirmed that with several AI's just now.

NIT: All AI code satisfies the GPL license.

Anything generated by an AI is public domain. You can include public domain in your GPL code.

I would urge some stronger requirement with the help of a lawyer. You only need a comment like "completely coded by AI, but 100% reviewed by me" to make that code's license worthless.

The only AI-generated part copyrightable are the ones modified by a human.

I am afraid that this "waters down" the actual licensed code.

...We should start opening issues on "100% vibecoded" projects for relicensing to public domain to raise some awareness to the issue.

Re: AI assistance when contributing to the Linux kernel

#205

Post by Luker88 »

lrvick wrote: post #184
qsort wrote: post #5

Basically the rules are that you can use AI, but you take full responsibility for your commits and code must satisfy the license. That's... refreshingly normal? Surely something most people acting in good faith can get behind.

It cannot be understated how religiously opposed many in the Linux community are to even a single AI assisted commit landing in the kernel no matter how well reviewed. Plenty see Torvalds as a traitor for this policy and will never contribute again if any clearly labeled AI generated code is actually allowed to merge.

Just remember that "reviewed" is not enough to not be considered public domain.

It needs to be modified by a human. No amount of prompting counts, and you can only copyright the modified parts.

Any license on "100% vibecoded" projects can be safely ignored.

I expect litigations in a few years where people argue about how much they can steal and relicense "since it was vibecoded anyway".

Re: AI assistance when contributing to the Linux kernel

#206

Post by zarzavat »

sarchertech wrote: post #29

This does nothing to shield Linux from responsibility for infringing code. This is essentially like a retail store saying the supplier is responsible for eliminating all traces of THC from their hemp when they know that isn’t a reasonable request to make. It’s a foreseeable consequence. You don’t get to grant yourself immunity from liability like this.

Shield from what exactly? The Linux kernel is not a legal entity. It's a collection of contributions from various contributors. There is the Linux Foundation but they do not own Linux.

If Linux were to contain 3rd party copyrighted code the legal entity at risk of being sued would be... Linux users, which given how widely deployed Linux is is basically everyone on Earth, and all large companies.

Linux development is funded by large companies with big legal departments. It's safe to say that nobody is going to be picking this legal fight any time soon.

Re: AI assistance when contributing to the Linux kernel

#208

Post by lrvick »

ebbi wrote: post #192
lrvick wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It cannot be understated how religiously opposed many in the Linux community are to even a single AI assisted commit landing in the kernel no matter how well reviewed. Plenty see Torvalds as a traitor for this policy and will never contribute again if any clearly labeled AI generated code is actually allowed to merge.

True - on Mastodon there is a very vocal crowd that are against AI in general, and are identifying Linux distros that have AI generated code with the view of boycotting it.

Soon they will have to boycott all of them. Then what I wonder?

Re: AI assistance when contributing to the Linux kernel

#209

Post by [deleted] »

Luker88 wrote: post #205
lrvick wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It cannot be understated how religiously opposed many in the Linux community are to even a single AI assisted commit landing in the kernel no matter how well reviewed. Plenty see Torvalds as a traitor for this policy and will never contribute again if any clearly labeled AI generated code is actually allowed to merge.

Just remember that "reviewed" is not enough to not be considered public domain. It needs to be modified by a human. No amount of prompting counts, and you can only copyright the modified parts. Any license on "100% vibecoded" projects can be safely ignored. I expect litigations in a few years where people argue about how much they can steal and relicense "since it was vibecoded anyway".

[deleted]

Re: AI assistance when contributing to the Linux kernel

#210

Post by lrvick »

Luker88 wrote: post #205
lrvick wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It cannot be understated how religiously opposed many in the Linux community are to even a single AI assisted commit landing in the kernel no matter how well reviewed. Plenty see Torvalds as a traitor for this policy and will never contribute again if any clearly labeled AI generated code is actually allowed to merge.

Just remember that "reviewed" is not enough to not be considered public domain. It needs to be modified by a human. No amount of prompting counts, and you can only copyright the modified parts. Any license on "100% vibecoded" projects can be safely ignored. I expect litigations in a few years where people argue about how much they can steal and relicense "since it was vibecoded anyway".

Meanwhile I expect that intellectual property protections for software are completely unenforceable and effectively useless now. If something does not exist as MIT, an LLM will create it.

The playing field is level now, and corpo moats no longer exist. I happily take that trade.

Post reply on HN