Why would that be your conclusion?

"introduced a data race bug in the kernel unbeknownst to himself but this bug was caught by other reviewer […therefore] Linus himself did not understand the changes Claude made to the code he submitted in the mailing list"

What other reading of this is there? A bug is being cited as evidence of slop generation, which implies pre-AI the bug would not have happened.

▲

jacquesm a day ago | parent [-]

You extrapolated from a single instance where something did happen to an entirely different thing never happening as a position the original poster might have held, whereas it is 100% obvious that that would not be the case.

That effectively makes it a strawman argument.

We are talking about this bug, in this context. Not about pre-AI bugs that did happen and that also were caught (and then there is of course all the ones that were not caught).

▲

ceejayoz a day ago | parent [-]

Again, "Linus himself did not understand the changes Claude made to the code he submitted" implies that Linus writing the code himself would've prevented the bug.

▲

jacquesm a day ago | parent [-]

Who knows, it might have. We just don't know.

	▲	ceejayoz a day ago \| parent [-]
		> We just don't know. Yes, that's why the parent poster's argument is bunk; it implies we know.