plz dont wreck a good thing, keep ai well away from linux.
[dead]
at least i got to see the world before it got sloppy
AI in Linux
101–107 of 107 posts
Re: AI in Linux
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> It argues that maintainers should consider political/moral/ethical arguments around climate change, effect on water supplies, energy prices, etc Is the assumption that maintainers did not consider those things?
Imho, this is the crux of the debate.
Of course Linus realizes linux development is political, because he's lived that, however he might phrase it.
What I think both are actually saying:
Drew Devault (blogger): Linux development should place political/moral/ethical arguments in primacy (or at least more important?)
Linus: Technical reality should always come first, with other considerations secondary
If the above read is correct, I'm sympathetic to Linus' position. If the linux kernel doesn't work and improve, technically, then nothing else about the project matters.
Bikeshedding about political/moral/ethical qualms impairs the technical work.
Ergo, a strong lighthouse statement from Linus that the technical work always comes first, even if other considerations are made when appropriate.
The AI genie (referring broadly to 'any LLM-based tool that performs a useful development function') isn't going back in the bottle, and linux sticking its head in the sand for ethical reasons will harm linux.
Re: AI in Linux
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It argues that maintainers should consider political/moral/ethical arguments around climate change, effect on water supplies, energy prices, etc Is the assumption that maintainers did not consider those things?
Imho, this is the crux of the debate. Of course Linus realizes linux development is political, because he's lived that, however he might phrase it. What I think both are actually saying: Drew Devault (blogger): Linux development should place political/moral/ethical arguments in primacy (or at least more important?) Linus: Technical reality should always come first, with other considerations secondary If the above rea…
One could place political/moral/ethical arguments in primacy and still conclude that the greater good is best served by continuing on.
Re: AI in Linux
#104Re: AI in Linux
#105>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…
> I don't see evidence this is true
One does not need to look very far.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/may/13/utah-approve...
> The facility will require about 9GW of power, which is more than the entire state of Utah currently consumes
Re: AI in Linux
#106I 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.
As I stated in another comment;
when you license code under the GNU GPLv2 (as you are doing whenever you contribute to the kernel), you are making an overt intellectual property claim. Unless you include attribution back to another GNU GPLv2 (or compatible) source that you are copying from, you are asserting that all the code you've just contributed is work that you have a the full legal copy-right to distribute and (re-)license.
However, if non-trivial code contributions are made by LLMs, that cannot be ensured (even if the user intends for it to be the case), as LLMs will never be able to consistently and correctly attribute the source of their code (not to mention a lot of it was illegal to train on to begin with but that's besides the point).
An LLM could very easily reproduce code from a project which is incompatible with the GNU GPLv2, and not only will it be illegally integrated into the kernel source, but the contributor is actually falsely claiming it as their own original work.
> Are you a lawyer or an intellectual-property legal expert?
Appeal to authority - we are free to comment on this matter irrespective of our vocation/education.
Re: AI in Linux
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's with this whataboutism? What if I told you I was vegan? What if I told you I only drive to work or to medical appointments? Would you pull another excuse out to justify your emissions? I've seen anti-AI protests. Where are all the anti-meat protests? Fucking everywhere bro.
> What if I told you I was vegan? That means you are likely responsible for more water wastage than a datacenter
How is water used to grow food "waste"?