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 won’t use AI to auto approve code for inclusion. And 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 (bugs / coding guideline issues) with the code. These don’t generate “slop” just find issues
  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

  • begrudgedcarfolk@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    1222·
    1 day ago

    No, the kernel has not gone “Full AI Slop Code” yet. FTFY

    Though I’d argue it has since Linus introduced a racing condition with his latest slop contribution.

    • auzy1@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
      189·
      1 day ago

      It’s not called a Racing condition, its called a race condition (so, I already know you’re probably not a dev anyway, and are just repeating info)

      The kernel has always had race conditions… A good example is: https://www.networkworld.com/article/4200802/linux-xfs-has-a-decade-old-race-condition-allowing-full-root-access.html (this was decades old code)

      In fact, race conditions were a big factor for dropping SysVInit… They’re even easier to do on a multi-threaded system, and become more common when optimising and multiple things are happening at once

      And, the simple fact is, the development process is DESIGNED to catch them (and it did), but they are so common, that the news never reports them. If anything, AI is actually making them LESS common