425
Linus Torvalds used AI to fix a Linux bug, and now LLM critics on Linux face an uncomfortable choice
(www.xda-developers.com)
this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2026
425 points (90.6% liked)
Technology
87814 readers
3790 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
I've decided to start moving to NetBSD. The copyright status of genAI code is very questionable, and it's likely any project that integrates it, with be "extinguished" via legal action in the future.
I really doubt that. It depends a bit on which country you're talking about, even if a court rules that way, there is way too much money involved for the Supreme Court to uphold it. And even in the very unlikely event the supreme court would do that, I'd imagine this would be one of these rare moments of bipartisanship where some kind of way is found to allow for AI generated code. The US isn't willing to lose the 'AI race' due to principles, ethics or law.
The documents I quote are from publications by the U.S. Copyright Office. But, the Berne convention and the WTO ensure that member states copyrights are aligned.
I doubt "allow for AI generated code" has the bipartisan support you think it does; it certainly doesn't have the popular support. But, ever if it were legal, it should still be unethical (e.g. Amnesty International's reports of human rights violations in generative AI), and I'd be attempting to avoid it.
It doesn't look like it, but if 90% of silicon valley would get VERY upset if it didn't and move their AI business abroad, you can be pretty sure that some kind of solution will get bipartisan support. Money money
That's a very "doomer" view of democracy, but you might be right.
That would mean killing the entire internet whose servers run Linux, because the kernel is messing with AI now.
Only servers that have installed versions of the kernel that would be affected. Otherwise you can roll back to a version that is unafflicted or jump to an unafflicted fork. When it comes to Linux, there is very little chance that at least SOME people will decide "i see what's happening here and i don't like how it's being done, so I'm going to accomplish the same capabilities without using those methods, even if only our of sheer spite".
And if seasoned devoted life long Linux developers who are in it purely for the love of the game were unable to detect if anything AI written is in their shit, what makes anyone think aggressively mid out of touch normie bootlickers will be capable of detecting it in order to police it?