posted in Technology
Linus Torvalds used AI to fix a Linux bug, and now LLM critics on Linux face an uncomfortable choice
lists.debian.org/debian-project/…/msg00041.html
www.xda-developers.com/linus-used-ai-bug-llm-critics-face-choice/posted in Technology
Linus Torvalds used AI to fix a Linux bug, and now LLM critics on Linux face an uncomfortable choice
lists.debian.org/debian-project/…/msg00041.html
www.xda-developers.com/linus-used-ai-bug-llm-critics-face-choice/Replying to @themachinestops@lemmy.dbzer0.com
AI code bans may be impossible to enforce in the first place
I hate this attitude that if a rule or standard can’t be enforced perfectly, we shouldn’t strive for it. We can’t (reasonably) run an OS free of proprietary software, does that mean the free software movement should just give up?
Replying to @flamingos@feddit.uk
I’m very critical of AI, but complete bans on AI use are, at the moment, pretty much unenforcable. Not hard to enforce, not impossible to enforce 100%, but completely impossible to enforce in general. There currently is no reliable way to verify if and how much someone used AI, except maybe if you monitor people’s systems (and even with a totalitarian surveilence system, coders will probably be able to bypass it).
Obviously, if someone who has no clue about coding uses it to write the entire code, you notice. But that’s simply not how most coders use AI…
Edit: And additionally, mandating disclosure of AI can make sense, but it can also create the false assumption that codeers/code without any disclosure are verified to not use AI when coding when it simply cannot be verified. It depends entirely on the coder being honest and transperant about their use of AI. And given the passionate pushback, coders are definitely incentiviced to not disclose AI use.