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.
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.
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.