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

AI in Linux

drewdevault.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 106 posts

Re: AI in Linux

#21

Post by veeti »

NewJazz wrote: post #5
throwuxiytayq wrote: post #2

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.

Contributors may object to the Hitler AI on their personal ethical grounds, but it's not going to make their buggy and vulnerable code any less so. Because our societies critically depend on projects like Linux, it follows that someone willing to pick up the pieces and do the work will then take their place.

Re: AI in Linux

#22

Post by tavoe »

throwuxiytayq wrote: post #2

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.

How do I know if comments like this come from a real person or a bot?

Your suggestion that "anything popular cannot be morally wrong" is proposterous. It feels like you're trying to bait people into arguing with you in a way I associate with bot spam.

But on the off change you're a real person - I will politely say - just because something is useful and popular doesn't meant it doesn't have negative externalities and doesn't mean people shouldn't fight to make it better.

Improving emissions standards is important even though lots of people drive cars. The same can absolutely be true of AI.

Re: AI in Linux

#23

Post by natebc »

berkes wrote: post #9
jmclnx wrote: post #6

I do not see how AI could be legally used on a GPL project. But if you want to use a non-AI OS, NetBSD banned the use of AI. Maybe some of the talent will move over there. They can sure use the help. As for AI in Linux, I am on the fence about that, but since Linux is pretty much funded/owned by large corporations, AI being forced on Linux is no surprise at all.

Are you a lawyer or an interlectual-property legal expert? Because if so, please, please elaborate on > I do not see how AI could be legally used on a GPL project. Too many people "believe" or "are convinced" about matters with AI and Open Source without any backup or sources.

It's because, at least in the US, AI generated code cannot be protected by copyright.

https://www.copyright.gov/ai/>

https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intell...>

  The Office concludes that, given current generally available technology, prompts alone do not provide sufficient human control to make users of an AI system the authors of the output.
I'm not a lawyer either but if/when something like this goes to court the conclusion of the US Copyright Office is probably going to play a part.

Re: AI in Linux

#24

Post by asveikau »

berkes wrote: post #9
jmclnx wrote: post #6

I do not see how AI could be legally used on a GPL project. But if you want to use a non-AI OS, NetBSD banned the use of AI. Maybe some of the talent will move over there. They can sure use the help. As for AI in Linux, I am on the fence about that, but since Linux is pretty much funded/owned by large corporations, AI being forced on Linux is no surprise at all.

Are you a lawyer or an interlectual-property legal expert? Because if so, please, please elaborate on > I do not see how AI could be legally used on a GPL project. Too many people "believe" or "are convinced" about matters with AI and Open Source without any backup or sources.

I'm not a lawyer, but based on everything I've read on the topic I think there's a solid argument that there are legitimate questions about the use of copyrighted material in training data, and whether or not the output of an LLM should be considered a derived work. As I googled it, it seems like courts have mostly called it OK but maybe this matter isn't 100% settled or converged upon a single answer.

Re: AI in Linux

#25

Post by john_strinlai »

tavoe wrote: post #22
throwuxiytayq wrote: post #2

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.

How do I know if comments like this come from a real person or a bot? Your suggestion that "anything popular cannot be morally wrong" is proposterous. It feels like you're trying to bait people into arguing with you in a way I associate with bot spam. But on the off change you're a real person - I will politely say - just because something is useful and popular doesn't meant it doesn't have negative externalities and…

if you suspect someone is a bot, email the mods.

if you're just saying it as an ad hominem, that is pretty lame, and you can make a stronger argument without it.

Re: AI in Linux

#27

Post by supriyo-biswas »

Magicrafter13 wrote: post #14

Torvalds' statement was incredibly disingenuous and rather sad. Every single commit is making a legal and political claim. Each commit is saying "this code is my original copyrighted work, and I am licensing it to the world per the requirements of the GNU GPLv2" (or "this code is someone else's work which was licensed under a compatible license, and I am integrating it into this GNU GPLv2 project"). That's not social…

> LLM generated code is a ticking time bomb, and is going to poison projects.

Given the recent Anthropic ruling and OAI settlements, and the general stance of courts to look the other way when it comes to LLM use, I think an exemption for LLM-based software will be handwaved into existence (to my regret.)

Re: AI in Linux

#28

Post by usrbinbash »

logancbrown wrote: post #11

>The same process is pricing regular people out of the energy they need to power their air conditioner during those heat waves and the technology it enables is pushing them out of the labor market and into poverty. 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/ne…

> Economies of scale -> more energy = bigger electric plants = cheaper energy.

Problem is; power plants are not something that can be spun up with a kubectl invocation.

Power plants need to be built. This process takes YEARS, and in some cases over a decade. And that's just the plants themselves. The grid also has to be built out to be able to handle the new load.

And while this potentially +10year process is ongoing, the current supply is gobbled up, and prices for consumers skyrocket.

Yes, eventuelly, market forces may solve the issue. By then however, it will already be too late for many areas, with residents being priced out of a basic utility.

Or worse, the markets may not solve the issue at all.

Because; all this building out of electrical gear and power plants, requires very specific resources and talent. Whta if the markets decide that these resources are much better allocated (at least from the PoV of company shareholders), in building power generation capacity exclusively for datacenters, and the consumer market is simply ignored?

Re: AI in Linux

#29

Post by berkes »

logancbrown wrote: post #11

>The same process is pricing regular people out of the energy they need to power their air conditioner during those heat waves and the technology it enables is pushing them out of the labor market and into poverty. 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/ne…

> Economies of scale -> more energy = bigger electric plants = cheaper energy.

This isn't true. Certainly not globally. Because electricity in 2026 is converting finite and scares resources. Plants need fuel to burn, water to cool, material to build, land to sit on, etc. Yes, even Nuclear plants¹ need increasingly more scarce resources like "coolant".

What has been bringing electricity prices down is renewables: insane amounts of solar and wind being installed hourly. But even with that, we are still lagging, globally: energy prices are -on average- rising, projects halted or stalled because of lack of electrical capacity and ever increasing amounts of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere. Not less. Not cheaper. Not more supply.

¹ https://www.france24.com/en/france/20260712-france-temporari...

Re: AI in Linux

#30

Post by gen2brain »

ch71r22 wrote: post #16
datakan wrote: post #4

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.

The article isn't trying to find a particular example. It's talking about the overall stance of Linux on AI use. It argues that maintainers should consider political/moral/ethical arguments around climate change, effect on water supplies, energy prices, etc.

Why not fix all the issues with private jets and yachts first? Why don't they use regular public transportation as we all do? Instead, let's bash poor Clanker, who reviews kernel code.
Post reply on HN