As some one here summarised it: it is to stop AI companies from getting free advertisement and endorsement, the kernel itself goes through an unbelievable amount of scrutiny so the disclosure requirement was irrelevant
It would be interesting if this results in Linux being forked or perhaps even more interesting developers and users opposed to AI moving to GNU Hurd or any of the BSD variants.
I guess, as he suggested, it’s time to fork it.
the hardest part is to come pu with a good project name and mascot.
- Snoorlox
- Iguana
This decision baffles me.
Atleast NT is not vibecoded yet, not sure about BSD.
NT isn’t open source too. So nobody cares about NT.
NetBSD has a clear stance on no ai.
LLM code can be committed with “written approval by core.” https://www.netbsd.org/developers/commit-guidelines.html#%3A~%3Atext=written+approval
As much as NetBSD takes a stand against AI, it’s not banned. They just said AI code has to be signed off by the core team.
Also Haiku OS and Ironclad OS
If NT is refering to the windows kernal then I got bad news for ya
The userspace is 30% vibecoded as the world has seen with w11 on a daily basis jajaja.
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.
I don’t understand. Being moral is irrelevant?
yes, the Linux kernel would probably accept patches from Al Qaeda if it was a good patch and they were allowed to by most governments.
but why remove it ?
Because it’s literally advertising for LLM companies. Because certain news sites conclude from it that “AI did $thing” instead of “engineer did $thing, using whatever tools they found useful”. Because you can’t actually enforce it, which makes the tag completely useless.
Any of these reasons is good enough on its own.
According to Linus it’s free advertising for the AI companies (wowe look at how much code Claude (partially) committed buy le Anthropic now!) and also people don’t disclose all their other tools either so this is just an exception which can be removed. And I bet there’s going to be a ton of LLM based reviewing on all code that’s submitted to double check for potential bugs anyway.
Anyone who is allowed to work in the Linux kernel isn’t going to (be allowed to) push random slop.
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.
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?
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.
Completely this.
As long as the code is good,. does it matter where it came from?
Short answer, yes.
Long answer: yes, because private property of the means of production is bad. And because AIs got where they are now by stealing content. And because most major AI-companies are in major with fascist and genocidal governments. And because they’re speedrunning environmental collapse.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Good
