- cross-posted to:
- linux@lemmy.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
It was a unanimous decision by the kernel maintainers at the 8 October summit.
If you want to read Linus’ take, this is his comment in the thread discussing the topic: https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=whTs09_ozN+e09GU68N1wPP56MUzDjrg9rnKxQUa0A_4Q@mail.gmail.com/
Rejection of tools and disclosure of tool usage are two different things.
That being said, there’s much more faith in those contributing to the Linux kernel than in any other organization I’ve met.
I think disclosure is accepting the premise that it is something that needs to be disclosed.
Programmers don’t typically list the entire suite of software that they use to make programs in their commit messages. AI isn’t anything special, it’s just the latest applicable technology.
“But the Environment, Data Centers, My Dreams of a Graphics Card, Capitalism makes AI suck, Clankers, etc”
Yes, the way that AI is distributed in the West and the investment in that system is incredibly bad for everyone but the people profiting off of it. I don’t think that you should use OpenAI, Anthropic, etc as it supports this destructive process that will likely result in some kind of mass financial collapse at some point in the near future. I’m anti-AI in that sense, I also think that this is a separate issue than the actual technology which is available in many forms that are not sourced from that destructive system.
That being said, I think that you should not use Microsoft products as it supports a company that provides the computer infrastructure which supports Israel’s genocide of Palestinians.
I also think that it isn’t any of my business if the developers of the Linux kernel pay for and use Microsoft’s Visual Studio on Microsoft’s Windows 11. Just like I don’t think it’s any of my business if a kernel dev uses Claude Code, or VS Code with local AI.
This expectation that they need to ‘disclose’ it doesn’t provide any utility for the Linux project and, instead, serves to paint a target on themselves for the extreme parts of the anti-AI crowd to dogpile and harass.
It was the right decision.
This ain’t gonna end well.
According to the article imecth linked to in another comment it was already essentially meaningless.
I think the hivemind has already spoken, they are taking this to mean that the kernel is now vibe-coded and people are actively jumping ship.
The hivemind, aka a social media bubble.
Pretty sure most users of Linux are not part of that and are going to keep on using Linux.
Edit: looks like the Fediverse instance this community is running on is using tainted code by the definitions used in your link. Will this ship also be jumped?
IDK but I have a lot of issues with that list anyway… they seem to have a strange definition of “permissive AI policy”, i.e. any mere mention of an AI service gets you on the list.
Example: OpenBSD and NetBSD both show as “permissive” on the list, even though both have publicly stated otherwise, just because there are one or two commits where someone (prominent dev) commented something like “I had help from Claude but you can’t tell, and I personally vouch for this and I know what I’m doing.”
Is it for the kernel or for the kernel documentation?
The former, there’s this freenode article that elaborates as for why this is happening.
Damn… That article makes it sound a whole lot more reasonable.
I still think the Linux kernel should be resisting any submission of AI-written code, but this article does a good job of explaining that dropping the tagging requirement is a nothingburger.
