this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2026
239 points (89.4% liked)
Technology
87515 readers
2789 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Ok...
Everyone is talking about that and it is surprising to me that he doesn't recognize that as two side of the same coin. Why are you rejecting the low-effort, Ai generated bug reports, Linus, isn't AI just a productivity tool? What's wrong? Is it not being productive?
I say "surprising", it's not that surprising. It's a "guns don't kill people, people kill people" attitude. It's willfully excluding the impact that technology has on people, and framing the outcome as coming purely from people and the existence of the technology not affecting the outcome.
Because they are low effort. Good software engineering is never low effort, whether you use AI or not.
If you let AI replace people, and let them mess with software or report issues without understanding what's going on, without putting in the effort to understand what's going on, you're not adding any value; just noise.
But if you use AI to find issues, then investigate the issue, reproduce it, document it, etc, then you've got something meaningful that someone can do something with.
In principle that is sound, but LLMs can't do that, yet, if ever. Sounds like anthropomorphism. The 'hallucination' thing is intrinsic. What you can do is point it at easily verifiable problems like searching for security flaws, and then verify them. Whether that's cost effective in wasted energy and human time is still an open question, especially as token cost ramps up pre IPO.
They can find issues now though. Will they also find non issues due to missing context or not understanding the whole operational picture, well yes, but you can usually filter those ones out quickly. While i wish we had QA back and it be a norm again in software engineering as a whole, without it I'm happy to have something look for ways my code will break in unexpected manners that testers previously handled. Is it the same as having someone sit their and try and break your shit for the sole purpose of finding a spot where something will go completely off the rails, no its not but with a lack of true QA and rushed timelines that leave little room for quality QA yourself. I dont mind having something else that will try to gage my code from all angels and suggest areas that might have bugs I did not intend for or did not catch when I was reviewing my code. Especially considering I can do this without making users of my code the guinea pigs in lieu of an actual QA department. Sometimes you have to make the best of a shitty situation and honestly its an improvement over no QA which has been a norm for a while now so I'll take the small wins where I can
That's why you need to investigate and reproduce what the AI found: to verify it's a real issue. Blindly submitting the issue is lazy noise.