I usually report the bug and leave a link to it in a comment beside the work-around code.

Not quite. My C++ Linux rewrite is already production ready, meaning in theory I no longer need to rely on the Linux kernel devs. This will, in a matter of months I presume, become the norm.

You haven't been banned, but quite a few of your comments have been breaking the site guidelines, and so correctly flagged.

Bummer that you got shadow banned.

I see your comment.

Is your belief that Linus never had a bug caught in code review prior to Claude?

The data race is exactly the kind of subtle bug that even very experienced programmers would make in this circumstance.

The patches that Linus posted are relatively small and self contained and from reading the thread it seems came from a series of in depth conversations with Claude and were carefully reviewed by Linus.

So what we're seeing here is a tricky concurrency bug that even an expert would make. You can't use it as an example of slop

What he actually said was:

> The kind of expectations I have is that people do their best and I expect people to understand what they are doing.

> But that understanding has very little to do with what tools they use.

> And quite honestly, in my experience, the people I respect and call intelligent are not the ones that shy away from using new and interesting tools.

He’s saying that understanding or competence are more about the person than their AI use. I think that’s a reasonable argument, even though I disagree on the basis that it’s at least a little correlated in the shortcuts in understanding the many devs I’ve seen (not all, but a nontrivial amount) seem to be taking.

As an example, I’m in the process of putting up a patch series to optimize some specific filesystem operations. The amount of boilerplate that has to know to get done is completely unapproachable to an outsider both from the amount of time needed to learn that boilerplate and form it in such a way that maintainers will be happy. Even though I know exactly how the code is working, it bridges that understanding gap but I don’t see how it correlates with incompetence. I may be an outlier but I suspect there’s a huge amount of people who are extremely capable and competent and it’s just that the Linux kernel has so many processes that it’s difficult to onboard into the community without LLM assistance.

Presumably the person who's full-time job is staying on top of proposed changes to the linux source tree knows something about this; what are your credentials on the topic?

Linus himself is actually comically incompetent. He only became famous after the Linux kernel took off... decades ago? Since Git, he has made ZERO code contributions whatsoever (not even to the Linux kernel). He doesn't even review code and has his team of capos do it for him. All in all he's no different than the CEO of some tech company, his thoughts on LLMs are no longer relevant (for more lack of credibility, see his stance on Rust, C++, Go)

how do you feel about his analogy

> Here's a new rule just for you: don't use compilers for any of your kernel submissions.

> Because if you can't show that you really understand what the machine is actually doing by writing your code in assembler, then I don't want to see your code contribution. You clearly aren't competent if you can't write it that way.

You can usually be pragmatic but entirely emotional about something specific. Famously, Linus is both pragmatic AND emotional about being pragmatic.

The pragmatic ones are excited about where things are going.

The ones complaining about "slop" are the ones going on vibes now.

LLMs write C for the kernel. He would hate them too if they only outputed C++.

Or, he has a full understanding that, like everything single thing he's ever been involved with in his career, it's a new tech under development and will, as every measure up to now has demonstrated, improve over time. And, as all tech that has ever existed since the beginning of man starts, has somewhat initially limited, but still very practical and real, use in its current state.

Again, he's pragmatic, and has seen countless types and iterations of tech come into existence. The people expecting perfection from the start have no actual experience with the creative process, engineering or design, and and only want progress to stop (because there is, literally, without exception ever existing, no alternative to iteration).