The bug reports may not be arriving yet. They will. And when they do, you will face the same calculation the kernel maintainers faced: maintain dead code to satisfy automated reporters, or cut it.
This could actually be a good thing for software quality.
no paywall here:
YSK archive.is uses you to maliciously DDOS a random blogger they don’t like and other weird stuff.
https://cybernews.com/security/archive-today-launches-ddos-directing-visitors-to-attack-blog/
Other sites could also do this. That’s a design fault in the internet.
In a world where psychopathic mega corporations are openly looking for ways to enslave humanity and bring about the end of the planet, the weird tantrums of an obviously mentally spicy web site owner just seem cute.
over doxxing? callling doxxing them as “something they dont like” makes it seem so arbitrary
At this point, it feels like there’s very little left that isn’t malicious.
I doubt the Linux kernel allowing slop patch submissions with potentially higher rate of hidden insidious bugs will help the LLM-pocalypse much…
That’s not kernel policy but LF guidance. From the kernel’s point of view patches still have a high bar to pass to get merged and I don’t think we have enough data yet to see if LLM based submissions to the kernel have a higher or lower error rate than humans.
I certainly feel the uptick in LLM reports though - one of the projects I’m working on is seeing a deluge of them at the moment.
The kernel policy seems to be what I think it is, since LLM slop patches have been merged.
I find it slightly contradictory to delete code due to hidden bugs on the one end, then insert LLM code at the other rather than hand-craft the code to avoid hidden bugs better.
