I think disclosure is a good thing. It's not like it can cause any harm to say what tools you used. If you distributed a binary it's not wrong to note if it went through gcc of clang. If you didn't write all of the bytes it's not wrong to tell people where the bytes came from.
I have a theory on why the Linux project has persisted so well. And many others like it. It's the virtue of C. It's not easy. But it doesn't put you in architecture traps like a lot of other languages. Because of how slow C gets developed and the amount of thought people put in when coding it, it's hard to code yourself into a corner in that environment.
Most projects get coded into a corner and development stops. But C projects just keep going forever, ever improving.
AI may help them move so fast and with such little understanding (relative to manually coding in C very slowly), that the project trajectory could go the same way as projects coded in higher level languages. That is really fast, then broken, then dead.
I spent hours yesterday trying to figure out why simple settings aren't persisting properly like wrong refresh rate on monitor, microphone stops working, sound device changes, etc, when I reboot, and having to go through 50 steps and terminal garble to try and fix them.
The Linux Kernel hasn’t been doing so hot recently. There are so many people working on the kernel already. I don’t think that the number CVEs will go down by implementing traditional strategies. I support innovation but this still looks like a slight gamble from my perspective.
Apparently they do need AI to keep up. They should just disclose it.
They've had to reduce hardware support in part because of it. And also in part to losing people over Russian sanctions. Because of AI CVEs they can't let any hardware be supported that doesn't have an active human maintaining it even if the code has had no problems. Before you could just let non-problematic code chill.
Log in
I think disclosure is a good thing. It's not like it can cause any harm to say what tools you used. If you distributed a binary it's not wrong to note if it went through gcc of clang. If you didn't write all of the bytes it's not wrong to tell people where the bytes came from.
Should Linux contributors disclose AI tool use?
If they disclose it, might give them bad publicity. Maybe it could be a little white lie to deny it?
I don't think people realize how bad this can become.
I have a theory on why the Linux project has persisted so well. And many others like it. It's the virtue of C. It's not easy. But it doesn't put you in architecture traps like a lot of other languages. Because of how slow C gets developed and the amount of thought people put in when coding it, it's hard to code yourself into a corner in that environment.
Most projects get coded into a corner and development stops. But C projects just keep going forever, ever improving.
AI may help them move so fast and with such little understanding (relative to manually coding in C very slowly), that the project trajectory could go the same way as projects coded in higher level languages. That is really fast, then broken, then dead.
I spent hours yesterday trying to figure out why simple settings aren't persisting properly like wrong refresh rate on monitor, microphone stops working, sound device changes, etc, when I reboot, and having to go through 50 steps and terminal garble to try and fix them.
The Linux Kernel hasn’t been doing so hot recently. There are so many people working on the kernel already. I don’t think that the number CVEs will go down by implementing traditional strategies. I support innovation but this still looks like a slight gamble from my perspective.
Apparently they do need AI to keep up. They should just disclose it.
They've had to reduce hardware support in part because of it. And also in part to losing people over Russian sanctions. Because of AI CVEs they can't let any hardware be supported that doesn't have an active human maintaining it even if the code has had no problems. Before you could just let non-problematic code chill.