new | show | ask | jobs Github

colesantiago 4 hours ago

no.

slop is slop.

▲

teekert 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Hard to argue against X = X. Just curious, are you are including human slop in your statement?

▲

colesantiago 4 hours ago | parent [-]

The rate at which AI introduces bugs is higher than human ones about 2x more bugs than humans.

Human slop is equally as bad, but this is not what Linus chose in this case, he chose to accept the higher risk of almost 2x as much more bugs using LLMs which lead to the introduction of LLM slop.

I don't care if it is Linus or anyone else, slop is slop human or not, with LLMs it is far worse.

▲

ThunderSizzle 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If the human is doing a proper workflow for the AI, I'm not so sure it's big central. Yes, AI needs to be guided strongly, and if it's not, it makes very poor choices/decisions routinely, but that's why you keep an engineer controlling the process.

I force all work to be split up into chunks, properly investigated, spiked, and planned out, and then implemented via TDD (with only system-boundary mocking permitted). It's not perfect, but I've seen regression bugs very much cut so far.

Beyond that, if it's a GUI app, I also require the TDD cycle to require GUI tests with screenshot evidence, and proper assert statements.

▲

simianwords 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is the kind of argument Linus was attacking. His tone against the anti-ai commitment in Linux now makes sense.

▲

kelnos 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It sounds like you've defined "slop" as "anything an LLM produces". Seems unlikely you're going to get much agreement here.

	▲	colesantiago an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Why yes, it is "slop" and Linus introduced a bug based on what the LLM produced. He didn't even review the code. [0] Someone else did. [0] https://lwn.net/ml/all/as6vBoWQGglxXxb0@thinkstation/ This is what happens when you use LLMs and this is far more irresponsible of Linus because he is vibe coding C code in the kernel.