349
submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by auzy1@lemmy.world to c/linux@lemmy.ml

There appears to be a few bad actors in the Lemmy community spreading ragebait for personal gain

In fact, the same mechanisms added at the beginning to catch bad human written code are the exact same that catch bad AI code

  1. No, the Linux kernel DOES NOT use AI to automatically approve code for inclusion. As far as I can tell, there are no plans to do so
  2. The Kernel actually has a huge number of maintainers. As part of the process, all patches are reviewed by a human who provide feedback as part of the process, and patches get bounced back and forth multiple time.
  3. Patches don't just magically go straight to master. The maintainers generally have their own branches where it goes to, then it goes to staging trees like Linux-Next. It goes through many eyes, and many tests by the end. The idea that AI code is overrunning the kernel is rediculous
  4. Maintainers also check that the code meets coding guidelines and is written properly, and solves the problem they are trying to solve. Yes, they also ensure the code isn't slop
  5. LLM's though might be used to identify obvious problems with the code (which they are VERY good at), or even identify code that doesn't follow coding guidelines.
  6. The only thing that matters is the human who submitted the code, as they should be checking the code submitted anyway (including LLM generated code)

Writing bad code isn't something new, and isn't unique to LLM's. Coders (and it seems some "journalists") have been writing slop since computers were invented.

The process hasn't gotten less stringent (probably even MORE stringent as there is an additional set of robotic eyes that can also check), and the same mechanisms that were put in place to catch badly written code 10 years ago, are still there now.. With no changes.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] LightDelaBlue@jlai.lu 1 points 5 hours ago

the pendorabox is open. its going be slop with times.

[-] trannus_aran@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 5 hours ago

True, but the seal's broken now

[-] Doomsider@lemmy.world 27 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

There is truth to every bit of propaganda. AI is being used in a limited fashion on the Kernel. In the long term AI will likely decrease the contributors as already seen with AI blowing up some traditional communities. This is a very real problem and people should be concerned.

The sky is not falling. The future is very uncertain though and this could be the start of something very disruptive to the open source community.

[-] pineapple@lemmy.ml 3 points 8 hours ago

AI will likely decrease the contributors as already seen with AI blowing up some traditional communities.

That's an interesting problem that I haven't heard anyone bring up before. I wonder how much of an impact this actually has.

[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 day ago

There is truth to every bit of propaganda

This is not true.

[-] Doomsider@lemmy.world 4 points 22 hours ago

Let me clarify, there is a bit of truth in every piece of propaganda. That is what makes it effective.

[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 3 points 10 hours ago

Still not true. People often just lie or make things up.

[-] Duke_Nukem_1990@feddit.org 7 points 18 hours ago

Still not true.

Propaganda says that trans women are just men that want to go to women's bathrooms to sexually assault women. Conservative idiots slurp that shit up. What's the bit of truth in there? We can do other examples too.

[-] Strawberry@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

trans women ... go to women's bathrooms

True

[-] Doomsider@lemmy.world 1 points 18 hours ago

There are several truths here with the first being the fear of transgender people. The second truth here is one of protection. This plays on the patriarchy of our society. Yet another truth is that these conservative men are rapists themselves. They know they could not trust themselves so why would they trust another man who is becoming a women. Most of this is irrational fear of course, but something that propagandists have cultivated. Also, I am sure there is at least one case of a transgender women doing just this.

I understand this is more of a nuanced view but if you are trying to understand why propaganda is effective it is important to realize how it twists the truth.

[-] Duke_Nukem_1990@feddit.org 4 points 17 hours ago

You just added to the propaganda being presented. The actual presented one does not contain truth.

Also, I am sure there is at least one case of a transgender women doing just this.

Where?

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] scroll_responsibly@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 18 hours ago

The truth is that trans women in (civilized? normal? accepting? (not sure what adjective to use here but hopefully you catch the drift)) places can use women’s bathrooms (as they should be).

The lies are: conflating trans women with men (because they are not), and trans women wanting to assault women in bathrooms.

The way you worded it (in the manner that conservative propaganda words it) inserted their lies between and after the truth; it misidentifies the reason and misidentifies the facts. Effective propaganda imo starts with something observable by those that receive it and then piles on the lies.

So like with the whole “Haitian in Springfield Ohio eating cats and dogs” propaganda, the truth is that in the area, there was an observable increase in the Haitian population… hopefully the lie is obvious.

[-] HaraldvonBlauzahn@feddit.org 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

In the long term AI will likely decrease the contributors as already seen with AI blowing up some traditional communities.

I do not agree to the AI hype, but I doubt that. The vast majority of the kernel code is hardware device drivers because one of the main functions of the kernel is hardware abstraction. Hardware is made by companies and being able to use ai will not reduce, rather increase their willingness to submit open source device drivers. If they do not, LLMs also seem to make it easier to reverse-engineer closed source Windows drivers.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the Linux kernel is quality-wise far above 99.9% of software projects. This means that you cannot apply observations of the effect of GenAI on software in general on the kernel, and also not vice versa.

The average usage of GenAI could totally trash 99% of company code bases within four or five years, and the kernel would still be fine.

Also, the way the kernel allows usage of LLMs is not necessarily a good blueprint for other open source projects, because these have less expertise, resources, and people which are experts in reviewing alien code.

[-] neox_@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 day ago

However, we currently don't whether LLM-generated code is libre software yet. Software Freedom Conservancy currently thinks otherwise, the Free Software Foundation is working on it with their lawyers. Whatever the outcome, it seems there will be a huge impact on licensing and perhaps new threats from proprietary software companies.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] thingsiplay@lemmy.ml 75 points 1 day ago

I agree with you that the Kernel isn't doing slop. But there are a few points I want to address, maybe even disagree. First let me say that people have different definition of what slop means. That is why we don't always agree on statements involving slop.

he Kernel actually has a huge number of maintainers.

True, but its still not enough to handle all slop. One problem is, its not always apparent at first glance. And more code is generated than ever before, surpassing the capabilities, time and nerves of all maintainers. That means they start using Ai to combat the amount. And that's an issue on itself.

Writing bad code isn’t something new, and isn’t unique to LLM’s. Coders (and it seems some “journalists”) have been writing slop since computers were invented.

This might be true, but that is not a reason to accept or normalize slop. It does not matter how much slop was before, we always try to minimize it. The difference to before is, that nowadays its easier and faster to write (or generate) slop in mass that looks legit. Finding out its bad code or wrong can suck up huge amount of time of maintainers, which would have worked on something more productive instead.

The only thing that matters is the human who submitted the code

For you maybe, but there are issues using Ai regardless of how the code looks. And I don't even talk about the amount of code it can generate and outpace every maintainer capacity. I mean stuff like how the LLM was trained on in example, and if the licensing will become an issue one day.

While the Linux Kernel operates very securely and in a controlled manner, that we cannot call it slop (yet). But there are inherent problems using Ai that are unsolved.

[-] glibg10b@lemmy.zip 1 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 46 minutes ago)

All of what you said is true and applies to any open source project. They're all being flooded with slop PRs. But I would argue that the Linux kernel handles this in one of the best ways that they currently can. Wouldn't you be inclined to agree?

[-] thingsiplay@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 hours ago

I agree. My point was, even if Linux Kernel developers are flooded with slop PR, that does not turn the project into slop, because the developers handle it well. And even Linus himself said the situation improved drastically and they don't get so much slop PRs anymore. It was a huge burden in the beginning, but now its much better. I think it was an interview, but can't point to a source right now.

[-] idriss@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 day ago

Writing bad code isn’t something new, and isn’t unique to LLM’s. Coders (and it seems some “journalists”) have been writing slop since computers were invented.

Yeah, this was the dumbest point OP made IMO, there are non-experienced people but they don't become Kernel maintainers or contributors. He's admitting LLMs slops this up and LLMs are yet Kernel maintainers and contribitors.

load more comments (16 replies)
[-] naught101@lemmy.world 25 points 1 day ago

even identify code that doesn’t follow coding guidelines.

Code linters have existed for decades, that doesn't require LLMs

[-] elixir_fan@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 day ago

That's how I feel about autocompletion and scaffolding, we've had LSPs and code generators for years, and they're exponentially less wasteful

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] savvywolf@pawb.social 27 points 1 day ago

My feeling is that Linus is still going to call out slop if he sees it - human or otherwise.

[-] Eggymatrix@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 day ago

Probably being very loud and a bit less tactful than the industry standard.

"Consider at least reading what your clanker shat out you jackass! Unless its your own crap, in that case only God may help you!"

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] klankin@piefed.ca 32 points 1 day ago

Yeah but what if you care about AI ethics?

Slop is multifaceted

[-] Toga77@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago

I also really hate Torvalds doing free propaganda for shitty fascist corporations.

Dude needs to realize his ego and stfu occasionally

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] auzy1@lemmy.world 21 points 1 day ago

The ethics sucks, but that's an entirely different conversation. AI companies should be taxed and forced to pay royalties to creators imho (and yes, that would instantly kill the industry).. And, it should be Opt in specifically.

But, that's not what people are arguing about when calling the kernel "AI Slop". The bad information I've seen is that standards have dropped and even claims that kernel patches aren't being reviewed properly. Some are even suggesting that the only review that happens is AI.

Bad AI patches are no different to Bad human patches.. And the process has always been to identify bad patches specifically. The process doesn't need to change

If anything, the standards have actually been raised because initial code reviews with AI are possibly better at identifying code that doesn't follow coding standards, identifying common bugs (or similar patch attempts that were tried in the past but don't work), or obvious bugs

[-] naught101@lemmy.world 18 points 1 day ago

Why is it an entirely different conversation? Or rather, why do you think that this conversation is not what the AI-opposition are concerned about? (At least some of us are)

By analogy, many of us leaped in to social media 20 years ago. 15+ years later, there was wide recognition that the new technology brought with it a shitload of undesirable outcomes that were completely unpredictable at the outset. The same can be said of fossil fuel use, as well as factory automation. Why would you not take lessons from those? Especially given what you know about the arseholes running the GenAI companies?

[-] glibg10b@lemmy.zip 1 points 9 hours ago

Why is it an entirely different conversation? Or rather, why do you think that this conversation is not what the AI-opposition are concerned about? (At least some of us are)

Here are some quotes from the article we all know we're talking about:

Torvalds expects contributors to use well-funded chatbot coding

Kernel maintainers are complaining they’re drowning in slop. Torvalds’ answer is: less people, more chatbots!

Torvalds said he is not trying to push non-chatbot users out of the project. But there’s already so much slop code and so many slop procedures that his actions don’t match these words.

These are just from the first few opening paragraphs. I could keep going.

Now here are some of the top Lemmy comments:

The most disappointing aspect of using AI on linux, to me, is that it sort of implies linux is now more comfortable with the “move fast and break things” -mindset, now caring more about “efficiency” and “speed” rather than integrity and quality.

Its really sad, Linus used to be a champion of open source and now hes doing his best to ruin it.

Linus is a traitor to Open Source community. Using and promoting a tool created by stealing the works of thousands of developers, artists etc. He might be a good programmer but he is a fucking douchebag.

So yes, the AI opposition absolutely is concerned with the maintainers welcoming slop into the codebase. This is why we needed someone like @auzy1@lemmy.world to step in and make a post clarifying the situation.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2026
349 points (89.6% liked)

Linux

68137 readers
1659 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS