r/linux • u/MMORPGDev • 19h ago

Development Linux Kernel Developers Plan To Remove "Assisted-By" Tag Requirement For AI/LLM Usage

https://www.phoronix.com/news/Linux-Dropping-Assisted-By-Req
507 Upvotes

94% Upvoted

375 comments sorted by

View all comments

327

u/foolish_shrimp 19h ago

If AI is so good, why do they always want to hide that they’re using it.

19

u/ficiek 19h ago

Nobody is hiding anything, the policy is impossible to enforce and therefore pointless.

5

u/foolish_shrimp 19h ago

It's also impossible to enforce child labour being used on the Linux kernel, but we can reasonably assume it isn't being used and if it was discovered that it had been, there would be consequences. 'People will just lie' is a bad argument, we assume a level of ethical integrity and basic decency from others.

9

u/RangerNS 17h ago

can reasonably assume it isn't being used

Can we? I mean, without a X-Child-Labour: False tag in the git signature, who is to say?

10

u/Shap6 19h ago

equating the morality and legality of child labor to a developer using AI as a code assistant is wild. this is why we can't have normal discussions about this technology

13

u/inemsn 18h ago

he didn't equate fucking any of that, he equated causality. that you don't see that and barge in here going all "wow this is wild, we can't have normal discussions" is literally the ACTUAL reason why we can't have normal discussions about this technology. fuckers like you will always come along with only bad faith on your minds.

5

u/Shap6 18h ago

i understand it, i think it's a bad analogy that misrepresents the reality of what is being discussed here 🤷

10

u/inemsn 18h ago

In both cases, something that we hypothetically want to ban or at least force the disclosure of may possibly be happening without said disclosure. Or to put it another way, a policy we want to enforce is impossible to enforce as it can be easily circumvented by just lying about whether or not you're respecting said policy. Given that your exact word for word point was "the policy is impossible to enforce and therefore pointless", it completely fits the bill.

The analogy isn't bad, you just don't want to listen to it.

5

u/Nalivai 18h ago

It's possible that we can't have normal discussions because some of us don't understand how analogy works

13

u/TribeWars 18h ago edited 18h ago

The analogy only works if linux kernel patches right now had a "no child labour used" field. If someone suggested adding it, the exact same arguments would apply to that change, i.e. almost everyone is already not using child labour and it's not reasonably possible to verify that they didn't.

Besides, a 15 year old landing a kernel patch would most likely be cherished as a prodigy programmer instead of being seen as an exploited child.

2

u/somethingrelevant 10h ago

the linux kernel doesn't have that because you can confidently assume 100% of linux kernel submissions are not using child labour. there is no need for a label. if it came out that 30% of all submissions were made using child labour, it - well it wouldn't be labelled I assume, it'd be banned, but you see the point hopefully

6

u/Shap6 18h ago

right, it's a terrible analogy

-3

u/Nalivai 18h ago

I mean, everything that I disagree with is stupid bad opinion that is always wrong, so your logic is understandable.

4

u/Shap6 18h ago

that's something you should try to work on. the world isn't black and white. it is in fact possible to have nuanced positions on this topic that isn't just "all use of AI is evil and must be disclosed" or "AI is perfect and the answer to all our problems". take the emotion out of it. its a tool. it can be used well or used poorly, as all tools can.

3

u/sharanoth 18h ago

do not expect antis to not operate on emotion.

0

u/Nalivai 17h ago

Maybe you should also acknowledge that your positive emotions are also emotions which you are also unable to take out of it. Provided you're a human, of course.
LLM is a tool, sure. One that has significant number of negative implications, one that is applied too much to areas where it shouldn't be applied, one that brings those negative implications everywhere it is used, just by the nature of the tool. Even when it used not poorly. And ignoring those applications just because you like the tool is not a great idea, and you seem to not see this.
It's finally got on a level at an "asbestos of developer's world". It has uses for professionals, it is used by everyone with different results, and it gives you cancer. So there is a question, should we be using it everywhere, even if there are ways to use it responsibly, and even if it's useful in some specific conditions.

1

u/IncidentalIncidence 18h ago

the analogy doesn't work in the first place; assuming a basic level of ethical integrity isn't how we know child labor isn't being used on the linux kernel, we know that because it takes years of computer science education to contribute to the linux kernel and it isn't profitable to do. If it were a task that were easier for children to do and one that directly generated profit, then we would be worried about child labor, because it is a widespread problem in industries where that is the case.

-1

u/foolish_shrimp 18h ago

I didn't say it was equivalent. I am trying to make the point that plenty of things are 'impossible to enforce,' but are enforced.

-1

u/unknown_lamer 18h ago

It's kind of depressing how often this argument comes up. It implies that LLM users are inherently dishonest people who lack professional ethics. I would like to believe that most people don't turn into pathological liars just because they get access to a powerful text generation tool.

-4

u/ficiek 17h ago

It implies that LLM users are inherently dishonest people

No it doesn't. Firstly like half the people won't even read that policy so they won't follow it. But ok, assuming they do read it then still: what is the purpose of the policy? What kind of a system is the policy creating? Because if you think about it:

  • an honest developer will declare the AI usage and be shunned by some people
  • a dishonest developer won't declare it and won't face those consequences, the chances of anyone finding out they lied is zero unless they are insanely blatant

So what is the point of this policy? Punishing honest people? The policy specifically encourages lying as being honest means some people don't like you.

2

u/unknown_lamer 17h ago

It seems that you're implying LLM users are cowardly and unwilling to be open about their (somewhat controversial, if you haven't noticed the debate in society at-large) position. Which is deceptive behavior.

If using LLMs isn't a big deal who cares if people know you use them? It's not like someone is going to find where you live and go after you. Oh no someone wrote a mean comment about me online I've been mortally wounded. If it isn't unethical to use LLMs, then this will all blow over in a few years and no one will care about some old arguments anyway.

We're also talking about the Linux kernel specifically. This is not a project that people just casually submit patches to. I think we can expect people who are working on an operating system kernel to be intelligent enough to read submission guidelines and comply with them.