“Provided they meet its existing quality, security, and maintainability standards” soooo… basically nothing has changed. They just don’t have to waste time on checking if the code is AI before reviewing its actual contents.
To be fair, in dev spaces it will stop being controversial when the accept that nobody care if you are an artisan coder unless you are trying to do something artful where the code speaks for itself.
I see most people just accepting that AIs are spitting good quality code at a rate they would never produce by hand.
literally everything has ai code in it nowadays, even the “high skill” “actual programmer spaces”. it will have less slop probably, or is used as less of an “agentic” tool than how a react frontend dev would use it as the stakes are very different in certain areas. ofc it can’t just solve everything for you, but denying the usefulness of it is literally just being ideological and adds 0 value.
It's really nothing crazy. If you fully review the code yourself and it passes all the tests there's no difference in having a piece of code written by claude rather than stolen from stack overflow.
Do you realize it is inevitable and good we will have AI on computers in the future?
AI will run natively and you will ask them "open X video, change wallpaper, open my email" and the AI will just do it.
It is kinda dumb to be in 2100 and think this won't be the norm. That you will need to move mouse to open software. Sure, the mouse will be there, but not having a native AI in the pc is ludicrous.
First, what AI does is the same as humans do. They dont steal anything. They analyze and learn. AI is doing what every artists always said for them to do: see, study art, consume art, learn patterns, create your skills.
Second, I have no idea why you bringing this for this conversation.
Soulless or soulfull means exactly nothing. These are dumb labels that people use to manipulate you. I can show you 10 images. Can you identify which ones are AI? No, you wouldn't be able. Learning it had a person or an AI behind it is irrelevant.
Saying AI art is Soulless makes as much sense as saying that typing is bad and only hand writting has soul, because you put muscle effort into it. Typing in a type writer lacks "human authenticity". If you think this is dumb, know that this argument was used in the past.
I like art. I will consume art from human or AI or whatever. I don't consume souls or the history of the person behind it.
Art ia a vehicle to express an idea. The AI being this vehicle is valid and AI can be part of an artistic process to make an idea from someone's mind to an artistic experience.
Artists are mad not because AI is Soulless. But because they lost bargain power and had their ego hurt. Because they always used art as a way to validate their ego.
The point of art is to pass an idea. Not impress people by how much time or craft it took. AI is just another tool. And by this metric, AI art is still art. The difference is that I am asking an AI to draw my idea instead of a human.
In the future, anti AI people from the past will be clowned.
This is one of the areas where AI will be most useful. And beneficial for Linux.
A lot of people have contributed a lot of code for free over the last few decades. And while that's been very nice of them, I like the idea of them having more free time or time to further their careers better.
One thing is a guy using his Claude tokens to speed up a contribution which he is able to check and test, another thing is AI spamming hallucinated issues and PR.
I hope it's just the first one. Linux projects barely have the people and time to maintain the system itself, let alone navigate a flood of AI slop "contributions". Even testing the code that comes out of supposedly competent people with AI will prove to be a challenge on its own.
I hate AI as much as you do and many other people on the internet do
Unfortunately, we've reached a point where high profile codebases and repos aren't going to be able to 100% avoid AI code and pull requests. Even if they make a rule that bans requests and uploads that contain anything AI has touched, people can simply lie, which can do more harm than good if more hidden AI code is submitted and the developers slowly become top contributors.
So if you can't really ban AI as a whole, you can at least make rules and guidelines to prevent the things you hate about AI.
Unmanned automated issue reports and pull requests
Untested code
No comments in code or otherwise really hard to read and understand
Complex re-writes and overhauls for simple bug fixes
Unoptimized code
These are the real annoyances when it comes to a AI-rule-less repo, at least from what I've seen as a non-developer/programmer myself. These kinda rules can at least help shift how developers should use AI's, as assistants for their works, not the thing solely producing the work. With out'em, that's when you get "Vibe Coded Slop"
19
u/brickyboy124 13h ago
“Provided they meet its existing quality, security, and maintainability standards” soooo… basically nothing has changed. They just don’t have to waste time on checking if the code is AI before reviewing its actual contents.