"the only conceivable reason anyone could object is that they're ignorant" is cultish logic. Adding "my hero likes it so it can't be bad" does not help.

Some of us have been "in the field" for decades and don't like these tools for many reasons, including "the output is unacceptable bad" and "the tools are built in unethical and morally deficient ways".

The fact that some people don’t want to see AI being used to generate code does not make them dumb or misinformed. They may be informed, and simply reached a different conclusion than you.

Also, you have to consider that some of the most popular tools are controlled by a select few and that concentration can be used to control markets and users, reinforce biases, and shape what gets encouraged.

Finally, the use of AI can easily feed into a maximalist view of "produce more and faster" that has direct consequences like layoffs, increased cost of hardware, increased resource usage, increased environmental impact.

All major operating systems and software has been around before AI. Sure, AI might have some uses, even good ones but not enough to warrant all the negative effects it and all those datacenters running the models have.

Some people just don’t care about the negative effects and Torvalds is obviously one of them.

I hate AI as in, I hate Microsoft, Google, OpenAI, etc. for pushing it everywhere, being an oligopoly, and using it for mass surveillance. But AI as a tool is fantastic for some tasks

To be fair, many have had their workplace enshittified by AI, or managers with AI psychosis.

Or fired over it.

Maybe they have family that’s gone down the ChatGPT rabbit hole. I do.

…I think it’s understandable for people to be pissed, and take an absolutionist position, as the leads who see it as a tool seem to be few and far between.

Every single generative tool is built on theft. No one has a training database that only contains code they were given legal permission to use for that purpose. Moreover, if these tools were trained on any GNU GPL code, then the tool and all of its output should also be GNU GPL:

if you distribute a derivative work or modification, you must provide the source code to those recipients under the same or equivalent license terms

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License

None of the companies developing these tools are obeying the terms of the licenses. The trained models are the product of theft.

You cannot be a moral person and approve of the use of these tools, they are diametrically opposed.

Linus isn't gonna let you hit little bro

Fuck AI

better than Torvalds

Have you forgotten about Bitkeeper?

Social media is a much bigger and dangerous threat to mankind than AI will ever be.

I'm arguing that it's not a small difference since the cognitive burden is put on maintainers who are already overworked. Now they need to edit through AI PR manure to find decent requests. A lot of OSS projects have stopped taking public PRs for this reason. It shifts the cognitive burden from the programmer to make good code, onto the reviewer to read and understand AI slop contribution.

It's not worth it to review community PRs anymore

AI slop is DDOSing open source

Agentic code is worse to maintain and breaks more often, especially when refactoring.

+1

Proof is in the puddin’.

If people think these specific guidelines will poison the kernel, well, let’s see if they do.

If it happens, go back to or fork it from an earlier point.

It honestly isn’t any different than previous kernel controversies.

Glorious leader does not age. His youth and virility are timeless.

Or, maybe, it's just his genuine opinion? Not everything is a conspiracy or secret agenda.

I have found no indication that FreeBSD won't accept LLM-assisted contributions... On their wiki there is a small section about rules for a summer of code event, where they forbid it being used for coding, but just because that event is intended to be about learning... That doesn't sound like a clear "no" to all LLM contributions.