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/frankster → u/foolish_shrimp]

To me, it's just an advert for different companies. Realistically, 90% of software will have some assistance from an LLM, just as it does from a compiler, a static analyser, etc etc. Interesting they don't see gcc worthy of noting as an assisting tool, but that coccinnelle is worth mentioning!

[u/inemsn → u/frankster]

Interesting they don't see gcc worthy of noting as an assisting tool

Compilers are completely deterministic and have fixed outputs, the generation of which we completely understand, can audit, and trace.

Comparing a fucking LLM to gcc is possibly the dumbest attempt at an analogy that I've seen all day.

Edit: I will say, I do agree that it being an advert for different companies is bad. A general-purpose "LLM-assisted" flag rather than one that allows branding specification would probably be better.

[u/frankster → u/inemsn]

Cooking is a random process, yet we can tame the randomness to the extent that we are perfectly happy boiling an egg for 2 minutes even though we don't know precisely how the egg will turn out. 99% of the time the egg turns out fine. The error rate is important.

There are some tasks that llms will give you a perfectly good solution even though you don't know in advance what the solution will look like. There are other tasks that llms will do a shit job at.

This task could well generate a correct and adequate solution with no follow up prompting: "Write me a bubble sort algorithm that operates on this array sorting by the ABC attribute."

This task is unlikely to generate a correct solution: "write me a terraform config that defines X infrastructure using the latest version of a certain provider which has just undergone a major breaking change to the format."

Nonetheless, even in the second task, in conjunction with terraform validate, and some iteration, the llm agent may well end up at a correct solution.

Now let's look at deterministic tools such as static analysers, compiler error messages, etc.

Even though compiler error messages and static analysers might be deterministic, there is still a non-deterministic human interpreting the error message and coming up with a solution. I don't know about you, but I have come across some fucking shit efforts to get rid of compiler error messages.

I personally don't see much difference between a non deterministic human choosing how to solve a deterninistic compiler error/warning, and a non deterministic human choosing whether to accept or change a non deterministic solution generated by an llm.

Bad humans will make bad changes to the code, whether they use deterministic or non deterministic tools to assist them.

Gcc as a tool not only deterministically converts human readable code to machine code, but also is a component of a non deterninistic process that converts errors/warnings from its analysis into code changes.

And now I think it's important to reply to your comment at the same level:

Comparing a fucking LLM to gcc is possibly the dumbest attempt at an analogy 

No u r

[u/inemsn → u/frankster]

Mess up your cooking, you eat a bad meal. Mess up your kernel, you brick your machine. These are NOT comparable in any way, error isn't acceptable when developing a kernel.

AI bros are fucking incapable of coming up with a functioning analogy lol.

there is still a non-deterministic human interpreting the error message and coming up with a solution

That human is capable of rational thought and critical thinking, whereas an LLM is not and simply emulates what looks like a correct solution.

I personally don't see much difference between a non deterministic human choosing how to solve a deterninistic compiler error/warning, and a non deterministic human choosing whether to accept or change a non deterministic solution generated by an llm.

Then you don't understand LLMs.

Bad humans will make bad changes to the code, whether they use deterministic or non deterministic tools to assist them.

And knowing that said bad humans are using LLMs irresponsibly is yet another tool in maintainers' box to know that they aren't to be paid attention to.

but also is a component of a non deterninistic process that converts errors/warnings from its analysis into code changes.

This is only true if you tell it to do that.

So don't. Lol. No one does.

Every single AI addict replying to this is worse than the last.