jesus christ… it’s been said over a million times, the development of the linux kernel is not some fucking 5 star github repo. it goes through a shit ton of review, it’s seen by a lot of eyes. a small piece of text that says it was assisted or not by ai is irrelevant if the code is good or not, which is the work of maintainers to decide.
Because rules have to be enforced, and investing time and effort into detecting and punishing rule-breakers would be a pointless endeavor when, disclosure/AI or not, all code has to be reviewed anyway.
On the contrary, a small piece of text that says “this code deserves more review because humans may not have seen it” is absolutely necessary.
All this is doing is making it so I can hide that I didn’t touch the code.
Why are you assuming that everyone would honestly disclose AI use if it was a rule?
The honest ones that would disclose it to say “this needs more eyes, guys” can still do just that. The dishonest ones that would hide AI use will do exactly that whether it’s a rule or not.
The only difference here is there’s no punitive action to follow for non-disclosure because that would be a gigantic waste of time when, AI or not, all code needs to be reviewed anyway.
I have to say the same thing I said to the other commenter; I’m really not sure that “some people lie so nobody should care about the truth” is the argument you think it is.
I have to say the same thing I said to the other commenter; I’m really not sure that “some people lie so nobody should care about the truth” is the argument you think it is.
Nice attempt at spin but relies too much on readers having room temperature IQ to believe that’s what my argument is. And just to be clear, by ‘Nice attempt’ I’m being sarcastic.
because there is no guarantee the code will be wrong per se. should junior developers need to disclose this fact, then? because according to your logic their code could be wrong! furthermore, there’s the fact people will do whatever the fuck they want, regardless of you raging on an internet forum about disclosure. people might not even read that shit because they don’t give a fuck. so you end up with half assed policy which you cannot enforce. job well done, let’s go home boys.
Junior developers’ code always goes through more review, yes. Also, I’m not sure “some people lie so nobody should care about the truth” is the argument you think it is.
no, people who have never contributed to the linux kernel are “flagged” simply because maintainers have never seen this person, but there’s no “junior developer disclosure policy”. you could be a senior dev who simply is contributing for their first time. you could be receiving ai assisted code by very old contributors, for example, which in the eyes of the maintainers is a certain feeling of trust precisely because that person has a history with the project. i think your comprehension skills are poor, since that’s not what i said. my argument is that a policy that cannot be enforced and as argumented also provide very little gain, is not doing much at all. if a policy does nothing, what is the purpose of this policy?
They why try to hide it? If AI is not problematic at all, why do 90% of AI bros hide it and refuse to disclose and when they do are often extremely cagey about it?
For these types of projects, it is standardized what compiler they are building against, kernel /proc allows you to see what compiler was used.
Why does AI, which Linus himself has compared to compilers numerous times, get a complete pass and absolutely nothing has to be specified about them whatsoever (in the anti-AI-Disclosure advocation space of course)?
i have seen the complete opposite, just because some post doesnt start with THIS WAS DONE BY AI doesn’t mean someone’s trying to hide it. i recently saw a post where they shared the repo, you could clearly see claude as a contributor in the repo and many of the commits were done by it. but apparently they were trying to hide it. these kinds of complaints sound that came from people who have never used git, let alone touch a single line of code.
the comparison is not correct. a compiler is deterministic, asking about it is asking about a standardized tool. ai is stochastic, asking about it does not guarantee reproducibility, which is the whole point, not suspicion about if the compiler did or did not translated it properly into machine code. furthermore, precisely since ai is stochastic, even if you knew which model and version you used, you’d get different results, which needs review anyway.
Eh, I see every 4th project post in open source communities being a cool looking project with no Claude contributed, no AI disclaimer, no agents.md, however when you look at the user’s commit history on the git service, it is
10-20 contributions (mostly issues) before 2025
maybe a couple readme or documentation commits in total
mid to late 2025, user starts committing 500-5k lines per day, every 3-5 days, evolving from large commits to broken up 100 commits today (following the 2025-2026 timeline where AI started doing the same)
exact same commit structure that AI uses, and filled with jargon
no comments at all on the post, or few comments but never responding to anything technical about how the program works.
Probably some confirmation bias going on on both our sides.
It’s been said a billion times: you don’t get to decide what I find relevant. The only reason these clowns want to hide their behavior is because they’re ashamed of the criticism. There is no other reason to hide attribution, your patronization notwithstanding.
If a piece of art is “good” who cares where it came from? The “where it came from” is as integral to the “quality” of the art as the “art” itself.
This is a very “product” mindset, concerned with the end result and how it serves you. Myself, and many others, are not as concerned with that or they may be against AI for other ethical or environmental reasons.
The take you’re giving presupposes that the utility of the end result is the only axis upon which to judge something.
Yeah but that’s art. Code is very much a means to an end. Code can be artistic i suppose but it does actually have to do something at the end of the day. And if it works it works.
I disagree with the presumption that code is a means to an ends. That axiom assumes that having “ends” at all is valid and beyond reproach.
What do we really need in life? Why must the code provide a utility to us. The same is true of every discipline.
As a community, as a society, we can determine what problem areas we must consider “utilitarian” and what we don’t. Capitalism, neoliberalism, these ideologies take utility as the given end goal for an entire society and all of it’s facets. Everything must be sacrificed in the name of line-go-up.
My chief argument is that at this point 90% of daily human needs are met, in excess, by the tools and systems we already have. AI provides utility, certainly, but why should I want it?
Definitely agree with a lot of that. Indeed in this era of abundance why do we need to squeeze more and more out of everything.
However computing has been one of the most valuable inventions of all time. A script is usually written to automate a process. If the script doesn’t work, it’s useless. Not all disciplines are the same. The value of the code is what it does.
You can certainly talk about the horrors of AI under capitalism but i don’t think open source developers should have to think about it. I’d rather they make software better for everyone than get tied up thinking about how to solve the impossible.
One of the values of code is what it does. Just like one of the values of a chisel is its ability to perform the functions of a chisel.
Other values include fostering human connection, instilling a sense of beauty in the reader, prompting deeper contemplation on the part of the reader, etc.
When I read code I do so to understand what the author was thinking and feeling at the time of writing it. AI completely obfuscates this. It removes any merit of the code aside from what it does which, for me, is the code’s least interesting feature.
Prior to AI I could reasonably expect every piece of software I interacted with to have been made by a human, every piece of software could be interegated like a painting or a novel. Now I have to assume all code is tainted until proven otherwise which means all code is assumed to be largely worthless. At least, as valuable as a novel is as a paper weight.
In the span of a year we have gone from an abundance of hand crafted works of art to an ocean of worthless slop.
Also, are we forgetting that AI models were trained by stealing from a fuckton of people? How are folks ok with this? Why is the discussion solely about how well the models work? Where is everyone’s moral compass? And why would they defend a tool explicitly built to replace them? Not to mention how inefficient it is (energy and money-wise).
Why is it that every single time you see someone trying to claim the role of ‘adult in the room’, they appear to be speaking from a perspective of being perfectly oblivious (albeit sometimes for the purpose of obfuscation)?
Even if you disagree with them, people who oppose LLM usage for ethical reasons still exist for example.
You aren’t making yourself seem above it as you would like, you are making yourself look unable to intellectually engage with the concept.
Why is it that every single time you see someone trying to claim the role of ‘adult in the room’, they appear to be speaking from a perspective of being perfectly oblivious (albeit sometimes for the purpose of obfuscation)?
Did you miss the part where OP’s entire argument was ‘fuckstick’?
Yes, fuckstick. That’s the whole point to a lot of people. I swear, the level of smugness of AI true believers is totally inappropriate.
Sure, but calling people fuckstick isn’t used on a large scale to shut down conversation, there is a qualitative difference here.
Edit: I belatedly see your point that it could have been directly in response to that, in which case the pattern recognition was misfiring and I apologise.
Sure, but calling people fuckstick isn’t used on a large scale to shut down conversation, there is a qualitative difference here.
Maybe if ‘fuckstick’ was followed by a coherent argument. But instead of providing one, OP just continues to throw insults about their reasonable perspective somehow being ‘smug’ in some way. I’d call that childish too.
the discussion of ethics is irrelevant as long as we live in capitalism. there’s not ethical consumption under capitalism, using ai is no different from eating chocolate or drinking coffee. you’d be surprised by the amount of slave labour that’s used today. now, if you oppose because of technological limitations, such as water/energy consumption, this is a very different topic and it’s not an ethical one, which to be honest is not even a very valid argument since it has been solved by open local models. then you might have an issue with the corporations behind some models, but that’s not an issue with “AI”. i also dislike the west, but to be AI is not israelgpt.
you don’t understand how ethics works under capitalism. you didn’t understand what i said. my point is that arguing for ethical consumption, which is the argument you’re using, is a flase argument because it doesn’t exist. if you want to address some of the other issues, there are possibilities for ethical change, tho!
I don’t need you to tell me any of this, much less in such a condescending way, I am perfectly aware of how the world works. It does, however, amount to a rhetorical sidestep, and I know how it goes from here. Have a good one.
But that doesn’t matter! Join the crusade!! AI is either the devil incarnate or our lord and savior! No in-between (no sanity in particular) allowed.
And as long as you have still not gone insane and argue rationally the bombardment of at least one pro-, one anti-AI post/article about Linux per day has to continue…
There’s something darkly enjoyable about seeing a comment that urges both sides of the argument to see reason get downvoted into oblivion.
I agree with you, though. For 4 years now, we have perpetually been 90 days from both the AI bubble collapsing and AI stealing all of our jobs. AI is just a tool. Can you do horrible things with it? Yep. Can you do wonderful things with it? Also yep.
Literally every argument you can make for/against it has an equal and opposite argument that can be made that counters what you said.
jesus christ… it’s been said over a million times, the development of the linux kernel is not some fucking 5 star github repo. it goes through a shit ton of review, it’s seen by a lot of eyes. a small piece of text that says it was assisted or not by ai is irrelevant if the code is good or not, which is the work of maintainers to decide.
but why remove it ?
Because rules have to be enforced, and investing time and effort into detecting and punishing rule-breakers would be a pointless endeavor when, disclosure/AI or not, all code has to be reviewed anyway.
maybe we should ask the maintainers, since it’s they’re the ones where this disclaimer could be useful or not. :)
On the contrary, a small piece of text that says “this code deserves more review because humans may not have seen it” is absolutely necessary.
All this is doing is making it so I can hide that I didn’t touch the code.
Why are you assuming that everyone would honestly disclose AI use if it was a rule?
The honest ones that would disclose it to say “this needs more eyes, guys” can still do just that. The dishonest ones that would hide AI use will do exactly that whether it’s a rule or not.
The only difference here is there’s no punitive action to follow for non-disclosure because that would be a gigantic waste of time when, AI or not, all code needs to be reviewed anyway.
I have to say the same thing I said to the other commenter; I’m really not sure that “some people lie so nobody should care about the truth” is the argument you think it is.
Nice attempt at spin but relies too much on readers having room temperature IQ to believe that’s what my argument is. And just to be clear, by ‘Nice attempt’ I’m being sarcastic.
What kind of psycopath quotes the entire comment they’re replying to? As if your opinions weren’t enough of a red flag.
because there is no guarantee the code will be wrong per se. should junior developers need to disclose this fact, then? because according to your logic their code could be wrong! furthermore, there’s the fact people will do whatever the fuck they want, regardless of you raging on an internet forum about disclosure. people might not even read that shit because they don’t give a fuck. so you end up with half assed policy which you cannot enforce. job well done, let’s go home boys.
Junior developers’ code always goes through more review, yes. Also, I’m not sure “some people lie so nobody should care about the truth” is the argument you think it is.
no, people who have never contributed to the linux kernel are “flagged” simply because maintainers have never seen this person, but there’s no “junior developer disclosure policy”. you could be a senior dev who simply is contributing for their first time. you could be receiving ai assisted code by very old contributors, for example, which in the eyes of the maintainers is a certain feeling of trust precisely because that person has a history with the project. i think your comprehension skills are poor, since that’s not what i said. my argument is that a policy that cannot be enforced and as argumented also provide very little gain, is not doing much at all. if a policy does nothing, what is the purpose of this policy?
They why try to hide it? If AI is not problematic at all, why do 90% of AI bros hide it and refuse to disclose and when they do are often extremely cagey about it?
For these types of projects, it is standardized what compiler they are building against, kernel /proc allows you to see what compiler was used.
Why does AI, which Linus himself has compared to compilers numerous times, get a complete pass and absolutely nothing has to be specified about them whatsoever (in the anti-AI-Disclosure advocation space of course)?
source?
i have seen the complete opposite, just because some post doesnt start with THIS WAS DONE BY AI doesn’t mean someone’s trying to hide it. i recently saw a post where they shared the repo, you could clearly see claude as a contributor in the repo and many of the commits were done by it. but apparently they were trying to hide it. these kinds of complaints sound that came from people who have never used git, let alone touch a single line of code.
the comparison is not correct. a compiler is deterministic, asking about it is asking about a standardized tool. ai is stochastic, asking about it does not guarantee reproducibility, which is the whole point, not suspicion about if the compiler did or did not translated it properly into machine code. furthermore, precisely since ai is stochastic, even if you knew which model and version you used, you’d get different results, which needs review anyway.
Eh, I see every 4th project post in open source communities being a cool looking project with no Claude contributed, no AI disclaimer, no agents.md, however when you look at the user’s commit history on the git service, it is
Probably some confirmation bias going on on both our sides.
It’s been said a billion times: you don’t get to decide what I find relevant. The only reason these clowns want to hide their behavior is because they’re ashamed of the criticism. There is no other reason to hide attribution, your patronization notwithstanding.
the developers of the linux kernel, people who have probably been coding for at least 20 years, are clowns.
The biggest clowns can be found in online comments though. (And yes, I deliberately include myself in that group)
Completely this.
As long as the code is good,. does it matter where it came from?
Yes.
If a piece of art is “good” who cares where it came from? The “where it came from” is as integral to the “quality” of the art as the “art” itself.
This is a very “product” mindset, concerned with the end result and how it serves you. Myself, and many others, are not as concerned with that or they may be against AI for other ethical or environmental reasons.
The take you’re giving presupposes that the utility of the end result is the only axis upon which to judge something.
Yeah but that’s art. Code is very much a means to an end. Code can be artistic i suppose but it does actually have to do something at the end of the day. And if it works it works.
I disagree with the presumption that code is a means to an ends. That axiom assumes that having “ends” at all is valid and beyond reproach.
What do we really need in life? Why must the code provide a utility to us. The same is true of every discipline.
As a community, as a society, we can determine what problem areas we must consider “utilitarian” and what we don’t. Capitalism, neoliberalism, these ideologies take utility as the given end goal for an entire society and all of it’s facets. Everything must be sacrificed in the name of line-go-up.
My chief argument is that at this point 90% of daily human needs are met, in excess, by the tools and systems we already have. AI provides utility, certainly, but why should I want it?
Definitely agree with a lot of that. Indeed in this era of abundance why do we need to squeeze more and more out of everything.
However computing has been one of the most valuable inventions of all time. A script is usually written to automate a process. If the script doesn’t work, it’s useless. Not all disciplines are the same. The value of the code is what it does.
You can certainly talk about the horrors of AI under capitalism but i don’t think open source developers should have to think about it. I’d rather they make software better for everyone than get tied up thinking about how to solve the impossible.
That is so incredibly wrong that I don’t know where to even begin. Yes, they should think about it. We all should.
One of the values of code is what it does. Just like one of the values of a chisel is its ability to perform the functions of a chisel.
Other values include fostering human connection, instilling a sense of beauty in the reader, prompting deeper contemplation on the part of the reader, etc.
When I read code I do so to understand what the author was thinking and feeling at the time of writing it. AI completely obfuscates this. It removes any merit of the code aside from what it does which, for me, is the code’s least interesting feature.
Prior to AI I could reasonably expect every piece of software I interacted with to have been made by a human, every piece of software could be interegated like a painting or a novel. Now I have to assume all code is tainted until proven otherwise which means all code is assumed to be largely worthless. At least, as valuable as a novel is as a paper weight.
In the span of a year we have gone from an abundance of hand crafted works of art to an ocean of worthless slop.
Yes, fuckstick. That’s the whole point to a lot of people.
I swear, the level of smugness of AI true believers is totally inappropriate.
Also, are we forgetting that AI models were trained by stealing from a fuckton of people? How are folks ok with this? Why is the discussion solely about how well the models work? Where is everyone’s moral compass? And why would they defend a tool explicitly built to replace them? Not to mention how inefficient it is (energy and money-wise).
we’ll be waiting in the grown ups room while you figure out how to answer the question “why?”
Why is it that every single time you see someone trying to claim the role of ‘adult in the room’, they appear to be speaking from a perspective of being perfectly oblivious (albeit sometimes for the purpose of obfuscation)?
Even if you disagree with them, people who oppose LLM usage for ethical reasons still exist for example.
You aren’t making yourself seem above it as you would like, you are making yourself look unable to intellectually engage with the concept.
Did you miss the part where OP’s entire argument was ‘fuckstick’?
In their defense, some people just are fucksticks.
Sure, but calling people fuckstick isn’t used on a large scale to shut down conversation, there is a qualitative difference here.
Edit: I belatedly see your point that it could have been directly in response to that, in which case the pattern recognition was misfiring and I apologise.
Maybe if ‘fuckstick’ was followed by a coherent argument. But instead of providing one, OP just continues to throw insults about their reasonable perspective somehow being ‘smug’ in some way. I’d call that childish too.
the discussion of ethics is irrelevant as long as we live in capitalism. there’s not ethical consumption under capitalism, using ai is no different from eating chocolate or drinking coffee. you’d be surprised by the amount of slave labour that’s used today. now, if you oppose because of technological limitations, such as water/energy consumption, this is a very different topic and it’s not an ethical one, which to be honest is not even a very valid argument since it has been solved by open local models. then you might have an issue with the corporations behind some models, but that’s not an issue with “AI”. i also dislike the west, but to be AI is not israelgpt.
Have you seen this meme? That’s you. That’s what you sound like.
“Everything is unethical therefore I don’t have to make ethical choices” is bad logic and morally wrong
you don’t understand how ethics works under capitalism. you didn’t understand what i said. my point is that arguing for ethical consumption, which is the argument you’re using, is a flase argument because it doesn’t exist. if you want to address some of the other issues, there are possibilities for ethical change, tho!
Ethics aren’t black and white but shades of grey. There are indeed more and less ethical choices to make within capitalism.
I don’t need you to tell me any of this, much less in such a condescending way, I am perfectly aware of how the world works. It does, however, amount to a rhetorical sidestep, and I know how it goes from here. Have a good one.
But that doesn’t matter! Join the crusade!! AI is either the devil incarnate or our lord and savior! No in-between (no sanity in particular) allowed.
And as long as you have still not gone insane and argue rationally the bombardment of at least one pro-, one anti-AI post/article about Linux per day has to continue…
There’s something darkly enjoyable about seeing a comment that urges both sides of the argument to see reason get downvoted into oblivion.
I agree with you, though. For 4 years now, we have perpetually been 90 days from both the AI bubble collapsing and AI stealing all of our jobs. AI is just a tool. Can you do horrible things with it? Yep. Can you do wonderful things with it? Also yep.
Literally every argument you can make for/against it has an equal and opposite argument that can be made that counters what you said.
ai is owned and marketed by completely evil people.
It has - 4 downvotes. Chill.
You can do wonderful things with the stealing machine? Oh goodie.
i feel you, i honestly been feeling the need to avoid the linux community (although i’ve obviously failed) for some time because is tiring.