Linux is the name of a computer operating system kernel and a group of systems built on it, like Ubuntu or Mint. Linux is the basic infrastructure of the Internet. It’s important. A report ju…
You do realize that all code for the kernel is code reviewed and tested by so many people right? The patches are probably some of the most human reviewed code on the planet…
This feels like the time when every armchair expert became experts on immunology…
The actual policy is that it all gets reviewed by a human I think when I was looking into it.
The bots are likely most useful to reject obviously bad patches which have obvious bugs or don’t follow guidelines. And identifying bad code is something which AI tends to be good at.
In our code at work, we use weakly typed languages which aren’t strict and on those it tends to be even better. We catch things like table keys that are typed wrong, etc. On C, things like pointers it probably does a good job with identifying as wrong
If it passes AI code review it still gets checked by human for things that are wrong and needs fixing. But if it fails, it probably needs fixing regardless.
A good language server / ide will also complain about incorrect types. That specific example is a deterministic process, no llm is required for it at all.
I find that very hard to believe, if you’re truly just talking about typing. If this is true you’re using an awful language server / linter / whatever.
Coding style is also a deterministic process, for which every widely used language has a linter or formatter or whatever. Also no LLMs needed.
As a professional software developer of 8 years, I honestly have no idea what you’re talking about
You do realize that all code for the kernel is code reviewed and tested by so many people right? The patches are probably some of the most human reviewed code on the planet…
This feels like the time when every armchair expert became experts on immunology…
The article is literally about how they have so much AI slop that the code is no longer reviewed by people it’s reviewed by a Meta chatbot…
The article is one angry person’s rant and you are further going beyond what it actually says.
Yeah. Pretty much.
The actual policy is that it all gets reviewed by a human I think when I was looking into it.
The bots are likely most useful to reject obviously bad patches which have obvious bugs or don’t follow guidelines. And identifying bad code is something which AI tends to be good at.
In our code at work, we use weakly typed languages which aren’t strict and on those it tends to be even better. We catch things like table keys that are typed wrong, etc. On C, things like pointers it probably does a good job with identifying as wrong
If it passes AI code review it still gets checked by human for things that are wrong and needs fixing. But if it fails, it probably needs fixing regardless.
A good language server / ide will also complain about incorrect types. That specific example is a deterministic process, no llm is required for it at all.
We do use one. But, in practice, they can’t catch a lot of things which AI will
At least in our case too based on what’s available, it also can’t check stuff like coding style well (but our development relies on that less).
Some might though
I find that very hard to believe, if you’re truly just talking about typing. If this is true you’re using an awful language server / linter / whatever.
Coding style is also a deterministic process, for which every widely used language has a linter or formatter or whatever. Also no LLMs needed.
As a professional software developer of 8 years, I honestly have no idea what you’re talking about
Can you post the quote where it says that it’s untested and it goes straight to master
I’m lost.
Also, looking through the authors articles, frankly, the list looks like low quality human slop.
I mean, having pet projects doesn’t require being “involved” with one nor requires making anything public…
Except I can’t see any references to this guy getting involved with any projects at all at a technical level.
If you check his articles, he’s definitely targeting a specific crowd based on what I can see too.
Saying “there is an AI bot that identifies if code is obviously bad” doesn’t really make an exciting story though…