11–20 of 106 posts
I don't see evidence this is true, and the critical mass of data centers is making electricity cheaper. Economies of scale -> more energy = bigger electric plants = cheaper energy.
https://netchoice.org/new-study-confirms-what-weve-been-sayi...
Instead, it's:
> how many tons of CO₂ added to the atmosphere or liters of fresh water supplies disrupted is a tolerable price for a better code review?
The answer isn't zero, is it?
tl;dr Kernel devs should prompt less because it uses up water or something. Repeat after me: you can't put the cat back in the bag. Pandora's box is open. Sucks, but you have to learn to live with the reality that most developers will use AI to write code from now on.
That's not social warrior, that's simple facts. We don't need to try and guess motives or reasoning for people's contributions - that doesn't matter. What we have is an explicit declaration by virtue of the license, that the code being provided can legally be included in the GNU GPLv2 licensed "Linux" kernel. But with LLM generated code, this legal claim is dubious at best. For trivial (!= simple) code, one can probably argue that the LLM code will not be violating anyone's copyright, however for anything remotely novel, unless you are 100% certain that all of the training data was GPLv2 or compatible, it is not legally safe to use - and aside from that, even if all the training data was compatible with the license, the LLM will virtually always fail to properly attribute the source of its output, which is a requirement of - as far as I can tell - every license compatible with the GNU GPLv2. I cannot share GPL'd code and misrepresent it as my original work, I still have to make clear that it was someone else's creation.
LLM generated code is a ticking time bomb, and is going to poison projects.
Yes, it is possible to do this already without LLMs, but not by accident. A developer would have to make a conscious decision to violate someone's license in the past. Now it can happen without anyone being the wiser.
And as someone who very much uses GNU GPL licensed software because of its license, this worries me for the future of software. On technical merits, it doesn't matter, but if you care at all about the artful expression of software, as well as honesty about who created what, this should concern you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tens of thousands of people dying as a direct result of global warming! Not a problem! /s
No ones dead because Linux devs prompted a chat bot
That doesn't mean I _should_ be given access to a nuclear missile.
I read through this and must have missed it, but I don't see a single example of AI use in the Linux kernel development posing a problem.
I read through this and must have missed it, but I don't see a single example of AI use in the Linux kernel development posing a problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tens of thousands of people dying as a direct result of global warming! Not a problem! /s
No ones dead because Linux devs prompted a chat bot
tl;dr Kernel devs should prompt less because it uses up water or something. Repeat after me: you can't put the cat back in the bag. Pandora's box is open. Sucks, but you have to learn to live with the reality that most developers will use AI to write code from now on.
This is a really disingenuous way to characterize the article (CO2 and global warming were much more of a focus than water, so your "or something" is doing a lot of work). Furthermore your comment ignores key arguments in the article, particularly the argument that contributors should not be forced to participate in AI-based ceremonies such as LLM code review that they may object to on personal ethical grounds.
And it's not Linux' task to close that, even if it could, which it cannot. How is that disingenuous?
I agree that we should keep discussing the merits and dangers of AI-aided software development. Broad, so indeed also CO2 etc. But that discussion is not something that Linux should push forward. It's a discussion that should take place outside the context of specific projects and in the context of the AI tools and providers, IMO.