as a kernel developer, I use LLMs for some tasks, but can say it is not there yet to write real kernel space code
But at the same time I cannot imagine reverting to code with no help of LLMs. Asking stackoverflow and waiting for hours to get my question closed down instead of asking LLM? No way.
And doesn't that bother you a little?
If you listen to podcasts, check out this podcast episode: https://www.pushkin.fm/podcasts/cautionary-tales/flying-too-...
It is about Air France 447, but also draws parallels to AI and self-driving cars
However I'm not going back to asking stackoverflow and pretend that I have nowhere else to find answers.
That's not your only option.
What you're meant to do is understand the tools you're using well enough to not need to ask for help from anyone or anything else. Stack Overflow is useful, but it's a learning tool. If all you were doing before AI was copying and modifying other people's code, it's no wonder that you have taken to AI, because it's just a slightly more convenient form of that.
Aren't we all in a sense?
Once you get good enough at a programming language, you can code a lot from memory and logic. As in, you can think of a design and how to build it without having to look up someone else's code. It's still useful to keep notes to refer back to, and look up information online to jog your memory, but it's not always a question of finding other people's code to modify.
If you use AI to make repetitive tasks less repetitive, and clean up any LLM-ness afterwards, would they notice or care?
I find blanket bans inhibitive, and reeks of fear of change, rather than a real substantive stance.
https://docs.postmarketos.org/policies-and-processes/develop...
The pollution caused by said revolution is currently putting humanity at a serious risk of world war and maybe even extinction so... maybe they had a point? I'm not taking a strong stance either way here, but worth thinking about the downsides from the industrial revolution, too.
The AI policy linked from the OP explains why. It's half not wanting to deal with slop, and half ethical concerns which still apply when it's used judiciously.
That never happens. It's actually easier to write the code from scratch and avoid LLMness altogether.
Having an LLM helps, especially when you're facing a new subsystem you're not familiar with, and trying to understand how things are done there. They still can't do the heavy duty driver work by themselves - but are good enough for basic guidance and boilerplate.
Do you genuinely think that people don’t know what documentation is? That’s insulting.
An LLM can help surface relevant information, taking your intent / goals into account, summarising vast quantities of code and indeed other documentation. That’s, like, their single most effective use.
But I think it’s a poor substitute for effective, well written documentation, tutorials, and examples. A lot of open source code (and commercial, too) is moving in the direction of nearly zero documentation and they just provide an LLM prompt to pipe to | claude -p.
This is not a great change. For starters, LLMs often get confused when a project is internally reorganised and mix different versions together. They will also often recommend using a module’s internal structures.
(I spent half a day fighting datamodel-code-generate with this exact problem, so it’s fresh on my mind.)
EDIT: the account I’m responding to appears to be some kind of AI and appears to be prompted with “make snarky, argumentative comments”. If you are a real human, please accept my apology for this accusation.
This applies to the person you're replying to too.
I think their policy is poorly thought out, and that little good will come of it. At best, it'll cause drama in the project, and discourage useful contributions. It's a shame, since we desperately need an alternative to the phone duopoly.