And when the day comes, and it will, when something is submitted and approved and breaks shit then people can turn to the devs and Linus and say “I told you so.”
my decision a few months ago to start daily driving BSD doesn’t seem to be a bad one.
then people can turn to the devs and Linus and say “I told you so.”
I bet his response will be an email with a dozen variations of “fuck you for insinuating that I have any responsibility, I didn’t approve that specific commit, it’s all <approver>'s fault who is a fucking imbecile”
Thomas de Grivel made clear the chances of accepting code with such a murky copyright situation were effectively nil, and he said on March 23 that he would remove all the LLM-generated code and keep only what he wrote himself.
let them. Seriously, let them do it.
And when the day comes, and it will, when something is submitted and approved and breaks shit then people can turn to the devs and Linus and say “I told you so.”
my decision a few months ago to start daily driving BSD doesn’t seem to be a bad one.
I bet his response will be an email with a dozen variations of “fuck you for insinuating that I have any responsibility, I didn’t approve that specific commit, it’s all <approver>'s fault who is a fucking imbecile”
And, as always, he’s not wrong.
Not to defend AI, but this already happens in the kernel, often. It has been this way since long before LLMs were around.
Yeah, they literally just had an rc of 6.18 that doesn’t compile.
Linus fully approves this. What imagination land do you live in?
FreeBSD and OpenBSD both allow AI and contain AI-generated code. NetBSD requires prior approval but doesn’t outright ban it.
OpenBSD doesn’t allow it, what are you on about?
https://lwn.net/Articles/1064541/
Thomas de Grivel made clear the chances of accepting code with such a murky copyright situation were effectively nil, and he said on March 23 that he would remove all the LLM-generated code and keep only what he wrote himself.