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

[u/MMORPGDev]

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

[u/foolish_shrimp]

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

[u/AngheloAlf → u/foolish_shrimp]

Not to defend AI, but those can generate noise.

Also the human should be held responsible for the submitted patch, not the toaster

[u/boobsbr → u/AngheloAlf]

The human submitting the code by the toaster should be under double scrutiny.

[u/UAP44 → u/boobsbr]

sure, lets get even more eyes on all the open source code there

[u/Nalivai → u/UAP44]

That's the sad part, we don't have more eyes. Just as we need them.

[u/UAP44 → u/Nalivai]

That's the sad part, we don't have more eyes.

And yet, people still keep resisting the extension tools that lets your eyes see way more than ever before ...

 Just as we need them.

Takes about an hour to download a reasonably sized model to do the first looking/filtering for you.

[u/Nalivai → u/UAP44]

Letting LLM to audit an LLM output is how we get inevitable infrastructure collapse.

[u/UAP44 → u/Nalivai]

No.

[u/TheOgGhadTurner → u/UAP44]

Yes

[u/UAP44 → u/TheOgGhadTurner]

To expand on my “no”: I’m not suggesting LLMs replace human review. The kernel already relies heavily on automated tools like fuzzers and static analyzers to catch bugs humans miss, and nobody calls that infrastructure collapse. An LLM doing a first filtering pass is just another layer, flagging things so the limited human eyes we have go where they’re most needed.

The real risk is people trusting the filter blindly, I agree with that. But that’s a process problem, not a reason to refuse a tool that could catch more than overworked maintainers can on their own.

[u/TheOgGhadTurner → u/UAP44]

Having something known to be inaccurate checking something assumed to be inaccurate but then you’re saying you should also check it via human? Do you really not see how inefficient that is. The human now should check 2 seperate outputs for inaccuracies. But then who will check the humans work for accuracy maybe we use a flagship ai model designed for fact checking. But that’s inaccurate too so we should check that with another LLM… and so on… and so forth.

Edit: downvote me all you want shills your disapproval only strengthens my point.

[u/UAP44 → u/TheOgGhadTurner]

 now kindly shut the fuck up. You’re lowering the collective IQ of the rest of the users in this thread.

My mistake.

[u/IWasGettingThePaper → u/UAP44]

I think this is a good point and I'm not sure why it's being downvoted.

LLMs are actually quite good at spotting the kind of correctness issues that humans often miss. Although the current models also seem to have their own blind spots; they tend to do a horrible job at spotting architectural/structural issues and intention/use case coverage, for instance. You obviously do always need a human to double check everything it says, which can be time consuming, but generally worth the cost - because the end result is often closer to being correct than most strictly 'manual' reviews.

I see it as an extension of static analysis; you don't blindly trust it, that's why you have to reason about what it says. It's also why it can be overridden when it gets things wrong. I think the notion that LLMs drastically increase developer productivity is a fallacy, due to the extra review and reasoning the human experts need to do. Used correctly, however, they can help to improve code quality.

[u/stealstea → u/Nalivai]

Precisely the opposite. We have millions of new eyes. Or who do you think found the flood of security issues in open source projects like Firefox in recent months?

New eyes.

[u/lemontoga → u/stealstea]

the flood of security issues in open source projects like Firefox in recent months?

The what?

[u/stealstea → u/lemontoga]

I guess you missed it. Or would you like to argue with the Firefox security team who says AI was instrumental in finding hundreds of vulnerabilities? https://blog.mozilla.org/en/firefox/privacy-security/ai-security-zero-day-vulnerabilities/

[u/lemontoga → u/stealstea]

I guess you missed it.

Wow, you picked up on that when you saw me directly ask what you're talking about, eh? Sharp as a tack you are.

Or would you like to argue with the Firefox security team who says AI was instrumental in finding hundreds of vulnerabilities?

Why would I argue with them? I just wanted to know what you were talking about.

Why are you AI guys so weirdly hostile all the time?

[u/stealstea → u/lemontoga]

Simple facts about where development is going attract dozens of downvotes on this and other subs. It's not me that's hostile, it's reddit.

[u/lemontoga → u/stealstea]

Maybe the downvotes come from how weirdly aggressive you guys are about this stuff. Just a thought.

[u/obp5599 → u/boobsbr]

why? Its the persons responsibility. If they are submitting code they don't understand or havent review thats a them problem and action should be taken accordingly