In a nutshell he says that Linux is a technology project, where technology comes first. If LLMs help to improve the technology then it’s fair game. If not, then of course not.
He also says something about Linux not being a place for ‘social warriors’, which is kind of ironic, given that Linux is basically a big ‘fuck you’ against corporations and closed source, i.e., a scoial statement. Given how much beef he famously had with Nvidia, this is somewhat unexpected.
But I interpret it as coming from a place of seeing LLMs really just as a new tool and nothing more. In an interview a couple of years back, Linus also said pretty much that. He grew up with basic tools, had to create new software tools to make him more productive and improve the quality of his work. He saw LLMs just as another tool that can aid in development. I suppose this hasn’t changed.
Given, that most people usually don’t program in assembler anymore, but use high level programming languages like C++, which simplifies the process of coding enormously, or even scripting languages like Python, which present another level of abstraction and simplification, LLMs do appear somewhat like a next step in this evolution.
Issue is, you have deterministic and formal guarantees in programming languages, whereas LLMs do not. This is by far not the only issue of course, as others in this thread have also noted.
I wonder whether he uses LLMs in his daily work. Might change his perspective a bit.
The thing is that they rigorously review their code internally with In the project. It needs to be reviewed and cleaned up before it gets submitted. Someone who keeps posting junk is gonna get chewed out and ignored. So, the biggest issue with LLM code is kind of irrelevant. If someone useses it responsibly and finds a way to make it an effective tool, they’re not worried about it. Banning its use is kind of pointless since the worst outcomes are already banned.
He also says something about Linux not being a place for ‘social warriors’, which is kind of ironic, given that Linux is basically a big ‘fuck you’ against corporations and closed source, i.e., a scoial statement.
That’s what you want it to be. But Linus wants it to be a technology project not what you think it should be.
Given how much beef he famously had with Nvidia, this is somewhat unexpected.
Maybe because Nvidia did things that made it difficult to implement technology.
I wonder whether he uses LLMs in his daily work.
He does. He’s used it to make an interface for a side project.
It seems you’re approaching everything from a paradigm of pro or anti capitalism and think of everyone as either an ally or an adversary. You’re the “social warrior” he’s talking about. You’re unable to focus on just the technology, everything has to be put into various political boxes. It’s really exhausting for people focused on technology to deal with this way of thinking. And it’s not productive in terms of actually implementing technology.
Linus can say “go ahead and fork it” because he knows the social warriors wouldn’t be able to actually do this. They would sit around endlessly debating which hardware and network configuration passes their political purity tests and wouldn’t be able to host a fork let alone do any work on anything.
To be able to implement any kind of technology you have to be able focus on the tech only and shut out everything else.
What assumptions? In your post you’re putting everything into either a capitalist or socialist box as if that’s all there is. You think of Linux as only a “fuck you” to corporations.
Do you think Linus doesn’t accept PRs from corporations or something? Do you think Linux isn’t used by corporations?
I think you’re the one making a lot of assumptions and oversimplifications.
Code doesn’t exist in a pure, abstract vacuum, the environment around it shapes it and makes it useful. Technology all by itself is sterile.
When Torvalds says he doesn’t want politics in his projects, he means he doesn’t want the politics he doesn’t like to come up when discussing Linux. He’s made a lot of political statements throughout the years, but it’s acceptable for him because it’s his.
The planet is burning, and government-sponsored hackers are threatening all users of one of the most widely used kernel, but sure, we need the thirsty CVE-generation machine today because he’s had his fun playing with them.
Well, good luck enforcing the GPL with the low-quality generated slop. The lack of foresight from one of the world’s top software leaders here is frankly appalling.
Except the “social warriors” you and the incel hate, did do this. The Hurd Kernel works just fine for any business task, if Linus continues to ratfuck the Linux Kernel with LLMs, I imagine the more competent developers who don’t want their work ruined permanently will start porting over to Hurd.
But that’s beside the point. Linus wrote that the Linux project will always accept good code to improve the technology, regardless of source. If Microsoft would wake up tomorrow and switch the kernel to Linux and start to send PR for good features, Linus would add them in a heartbeat. Same as the rust decision. If it’s bad, it gets rejected, LLM or not. That is the entire fucking point.
Then you, and Linus, miss the entire fucking point. LLM code submissions look fine at first, but come in huge numbers and eventually lead to massive reverts because they’re pretty fucking useless. Code autocomplete? Maybe that’s a use for LLMs, but they are barely better than non-llm autocompletes. Actual coding LLMs? Universally shit, but are getting better and better at hiding their shit. Like how most LLM agents when asked health questions get 99% of shit right in an answer, and then fuck up so royally on the 1% you will die if you just follow their response.
And it can’t get better. LLMs don’t know know anything, they can’t. They only hallucinate. That is their sole capability.
So to sum up the danger is two fold:
LLM hallucinations get better at hiding behind plausible code.
LLM code submissions drastically increase the number of submissions of code, incentivizing using LLMs to review the code.
Fortune 500 companies are currently in this trap. Microsoft famously is having to roll back so many Windows 11 changes that they admit were primarily coded with Copilot.
FOSS is supposed to be smarter than this, not give into stupid trends that have hard fucking evidence they are temporarily, terrible trends and not a useful tool for the future.
You are using your emotions as statements of fact your terminology is buzzwords you are useless and annoying. Yea we get it you don’t like generated code that is not hard evidence of anything.
You have some surreal sentiment towards code but you seem to not understand that natural language programming, self generated code and artificial intelligence are holy grails that have been dreamed of since the start that have existed in many forms before chatbots got good enough to make waves.
They aren’t ‘making waves’ though. That’s the problem. Companies are quickly finding the permanent inherent limitations of LLMs in regards to coding and several have started desperately looking for Jr Devs again after having a policy of not hiring them for more than a year.
LLMs are objectively a dead end, all current evidence points to this. It would be great if it really were this miracle technology the people selling you the technology claims that it is, but it’s not. It’s not even competent. Bottom barrel slop devs from exploited countries like India are infinitely more capable than claude or copilot. And unfortunately they always will be.
You are just as dumb as the people that over invested you have no idea what you are talking about… Like seriously the extent of what you say is “I don’t like chatbots because they cannot solve every problem ever all at once immediately and I don’t understand code” those are the facts that can be extracted. You are a whiny bullshit artist. If you want people to take you seriously how about you take the subject seriously.
I’ll be over here playing video games on Linux which actually has drivers for my video card.
I imagine the more competent developers who don’t want their work ruined permanently will start porting over to Hurd.
This will only happen in your imaginary world where being in the correct political box magically makes you better at writing code. If all of the people obsessed over the political alignment of technology (LOL!) left Linux development, nothing of value would be lost. It’s technology, it’s actually politically agnostic. But if you believe otherwise, then you’re not someone really interested in tech, you’re just interested in making tech yet another political football.
In a nutshell he says that Linux is a technology project, where technology comes first. If LLMs help to improve the technology then it’s fair game. If not, then of course not.
He also says something about Linux not being a place for ‘social warriors’, which is kind of ironic, given that Linux is basically a big ‘fuck you’ against corporations and closed source, i.e., a scoial statement. Given how much beef he famously had with Nvidia, this is somewhat unexpected.
But I interpret it as coming from a place of seeing LLMs really just as a new tool and nothing more. In an interview a couple of years back, Linus also said pretty much that. He grew up with basic tools, had to create new software tools to make him more productive and improve the quality of his work. He saw LLMs just as another tool that can aid in development. I suppose this hasn’t changed.
Given, that most people usually don’t program in assembler anymore, but use high level programming languages like C++, which simplifies the process of coding enormously, or even scripting languages like Python, which present another level of abstraction and simplification, LLMs do appear somewhat like a next step in this evolution.
Issue is, you have deterministic and formal guarantees in programming languages, whereas LLMs do not. This is by far not the only issue of course, as others in this thread have also noted.
I wonder whether he uses LLMs in his daily work. Might change his perspective a bit.
I mean, not according to the project leader, or the contributors, who are mostly companies.
If the 3 main groups contributing to a project are Intel, Meta and IBM, it’s not really a community project, is it?
The thing is that they rigorously review their code internally with In the project. It needs to be reviewed and cleaned up before it gets submitted. Someone who keeps posting junk is gonna get chewed out and ignored. So, the biggest issue with LLM code is kind of irrelevant. If someone useses it responsibly and finds a way to make it an effective tool, they’re not worried about it. Banning its use is kind of pointless since the worst outcomes are already banned.
The only difference between using C and an LLM is C doesn’t consume thousands of gallons of water and gigawatts of electricity per second.
You forgot the part where the llm doesn’t necessarily do what you tell it to do either
deleted by creator
That’s what you want it to be. But Linus wants it to be a technology project not what you think it should be.
Maybe because Nvidia did things that made it difficult to implement technology.
He does. He’s used it to make an interface for a side project.
It seems you’re approaching everything from a paradigm of pro or anti capitalism and think of everyone as either an ally or an adversary. You’re the “social warrior” he’s talking about. You’re unable to focus on just the technology, everything has to be put into various political boxes. It’s really exhausting for people focused on technology to deal with this way of thinking. And it’s not productive in terms of actually implementing technology.
Linus can say “go ahead and fork it” because he knows the social warriors wouldn’t be able to actually do this. They would sit around endlessly debating which hardware and network configuration passes their political purity tests and wouldn’t be able to host a fork let alone do any work on anything.
To be able to implement any kind of technology you have to be able focus on the tech only and shut out everything else.
That’s quite a lot of assumptions you’re making about me there.
And quite a lot of oversimplifications.
What assumptions? In your post you’re putting everything into either a capitalist or socialist box as if that’s all there is. You think of Linux as only a “fuck you” to corporations.
Do you think Linus doesn’t accept PRs from corporations or something? Do you think Linux isn’t used by corporations?
I think you’re the one making a lot of assumptions and oversimplifications.
Code doesn’t exist in a pure, abstract vacuum, the environment around it shapes it and makes it useful. Technology all by itself is sterile.
When Torvalds says he doesn’t want politics in his projects, he means he doesn’t want the politics he doesn’t like to come up when discussing Linux. He’s made a lot of political statements throughout the years, but it’s acceptable for him because it’s his.
The planet is burning, and government-sponsored hackers are threatening all users of one of the most widely used kernel, but sure, we need the thirsty CVE-generation machine today because he’s had his fun playing with them.
Well, good luck enforcing the GPL with the low-quality generated slop. The lack of foresight from one of the world’s top software leaders here is frankly appalling.
Except the “social warriors” you and the incel hate, did do this. The Hurd Kernel works just fine for any business task, if Linus continues to ratfuck the Linux Kernel with LLMs, I imagine the more competent developers who don’t want their work ruined permanently will start porting over to Hurd.
But that’s beside the point. Linus wrote that the Linux project will always accept good code to improve the technology, regardless of source. If Microsoft would wake up tomorrow and switch the kernel to Linux and start to send PR for good features, Linus would add them in a heartbeat. Same as the rust decision. If it’s bad, it gets rejected, LLM or not. That is the entire fucking point.
Then you, and Linus, miss the entire fucking point. LLM code submissions look fine at first, but come in huge numbers and eventually lead to massive reverts because they’re pretty fucking useless. Code autocomplete? Maybe that’s a use for LLMs, but they are barely better than non-llm autocompletes. Actual coding LLMs? Universally shit, but are getting better and better at hiding their shit. Like how most LLM agents when asked health questions get 99% of shit right in an answer, and then fuck up so royally on the 1% you will die if you just follow their response.
And it can’t get better. LLMs don’t know know anything, they can’t. They only hallucinate. That is their sole capability.
So to sum up the danger is two fold:
LLM hallucinations get better at hiding behind plausible code.
LLM code submissions drastically increase the number of submissions of code, incentivizing using LLMs to review the code.
Fortune 500 companies are currently in this trap. Microsoft famously is having to roll back so many Windows 11 changes that they admit were primarily coded with Copilot.
FOSS is supposed to be smarter than this, not give into stupid trends that have hard fucking evidence they are temporarily, terrible trends and not a useful tool for the future.
You are using your emotions as statements of fact your terminology is buzzwords you are useless and annoying. Yea we get it you don’t like generated code that is not hard evidence of anything.
You have some surreal sentiment towards code but you seem to not understand that natural language programming, self generated code and artificial intelligence are holy grails that have been dreamed of since the start that have existed in many forms before chatbots got good enough to make waves.
They aren’t ‘making waves’ though. That’s the problem. Companies are quickly finding the permanent inherent limitations of LLMs in regards to coding and several have started desperately looking for Jr Devs again after having a policy of not hiring them for more than a year.
LLMs are objectively a dead end, all current evidence points to this. It would be great if it really were this miracle technology the people selling you the technology claims that it is, but it’s not. It’s not even competent. Bottom barrel slop devs from exploited countries like India are infinitely more capable than claude or copilot. And unfortunately they always will be.
You are just as dumb as the people that over invested you have no idea what you are talking about… Like seriously the extent of what you say is “I don’t like chatbots because they cannot solve every problem ever all at once immediately and I don’t understand code” those are the facts that can be extracted. You are a whiny bullshit artist. If you want people to take you seriously how about you take the subject seriously.
Disjkstra wrote a nice paper explaining why natural language is terrible to write code… It’s a dream for idiots, actual engineers dread the ambiguity.
Lol you are not knowledgable you think you are using words that have impact but you are just an idiot with nothing to say.
For anyone interested: https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~EWD/transcriptions/EWD06xx/EWD667.html
It’s not because you don’t understand them that they’re meaningless.
Classic LLM-fueled Dunning-Krueger nutcase.
Ok, go ahead and run Hurd then.
I’ll be over here playing video games on Linux which actually has drivers for my video card.
This will only happen in your imaginary world where being in the correct political box magically makes you better at writing code. If all of the people obsessed over the political alignment of technology (LOL!) left Linux development, nothing of value would be lost. It’s technology, it’s actually politically agnostic. But if you believe otherwise, then you’re not someone really interested in tech, you’re just interested in making tech yet another political football.
It literally isn’t politically agnostic, it’s Free and Open Source software, which is anti-capitalist.