Most of the comments here are super salty. Agentic coding is here to stay, and the authors are here to make it better.

And as a test case they built a Linux-compatibe thing in Rust!

Al of this is cool to me, but what I read here in the comments: slop, stealing, evil people, no trust, etc.

Linux is open source: the license says that it can be used for any purpose, which includes training an LLM.

LLMs have made developers more powerful (like IDEs did, or CI/CD did, or better programming languages did, or Github did, or ...), but all I hear is nagging.

▲

hn_submit 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

But you're basically rehashing things that have already been made by humans. What's the use in that?

We don't want or need hundreds of LLM generated Unix-clones which are merely slight variations on the Linux source code.

▲

xscott 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> What's the use in that?

It makes a nice test case to work on techniques for building reliable software with AI. It's research people can learn from, not a product someone is imposing on you.

> We don't want or need hundreds of LLM generated Unix-clones

Actually, I do want that. Having a monoculture where one vulnerability affects all computers seems problematic to me. Even if each clone is less secure, hacking into one doesn't cause the rest of the world to panic. It changes the economics for a black hat.

▲

vikramkr 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Because at some point if (big if) this trajectory keeps up the end goal is for all software to be fully democratized and created on demand. Operating system included.

▲

zeroxfe 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> We don't want or need hundreds of LLM generated Unix-clones which are merely slight variations on the Linux source code.

Good news, you don't have to use them. People want to build them, to learn, to explore, to feel good.

	▲	bemtevi 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I'd argue that that's not even a good thing any more. It's borderline just drug use, and at the cost of huge amounts of energy.

▲

flossly 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That's what people said about forks in open source: "we do not want them".

Apparently there's someone who wants them... The programmer who made it.

Funny how we're all for freedom and free expression, until we find someone not properly investing their time /s

▲

palata 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Linux is open source: the license says that it can be used for any purpose, which includes training an LLM.

The licence says that you have to distribute the modified sources under the same licence. IMHO the least Ginux could do is licence their work as GPLv2.

▲

312-12f 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲

brainless 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

And you, the new account holder, want others to take you seriously? What are you even mad about?

LLMs are a tool. Every tool renders some work obsolete. Some of us realize this and are using the new tool. Others will have to find new work. Chill.

	▲	bemtevi 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I don't think they are 'just a tool', just like drugs aren't just a tool but a method to subjugate. Sometimes, with tools of sufficient complexity, the intention of the tool cannot be separated from the tool itself so much so that the tool and the intention and human values behind the tool cannot be separated.

▲

gjvc 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> The license assumed benevolent humans.

You do make me laugh.

> The Pelican guy is also no longer taken seriously.

This part I agree with.