- cross-posted to:
- linux@programming.dev
You must log in or # to comment.
no paywall here:
Edit: looking for a mirror.
YSK archive.is uses you to maliciously DDOS a random blogger they don’t like and other weird stuff.
https://cybernews.com/security/archive-today-launches-ddos-directing-visitors-to-attack-blog/
At this point, it feels like there’s very little left that isn’t malicious.
In a world where psychopathic mega corporations are openly looking for ways to enslave humanity and bring about the end of the planet, the weird tantrums of an obviously mentally spicy web site owner just seem cute.
I doubt the Linux kernel allowing slop patch submissions with potentially higher rate of hidden insidious bugs will help the LLM-pocalypse much…
That’s not kernel policy but LF guidance. From the kernel’s point of view patches still have a high bar to pass to get merged and I don’t think we have enough data yet to see if LLM based submissions to the kernel have a higher or lower error rate than humans.
I certainly feel the uptick in LLM reports though - one of the projects I’m working on is seeing a deluge of them at the moment.
The kernel policy seems to be what I think it is, since LLM slop patches have been merged. Edit: I call it “slop” since it’s LLM code, and I’m aware some use that word differently.
I find it slightly contradictory to delete code due to hidden bugs on the one end, then insert LLM code at the other rather than hand-craft the code to avoid hidden bugs better.
Are you saying that AI slop is bad in those (counts) 4 removed lines of code?
I’m saying if their policy is to accept AI code, which the link seems to demonstrate that it is, the rate of future hidden errors in the kernel code is likely going to go up. This is what all the studies are saying, including those involving competent coders.
