I saw a wild take where someone said distributions are fascist for using systemd because systemd now uses Claude for code review.

[brahms@chaos.social]

@ariadne I see it as a "pick your fight"-thing: before LLMs, most users (me definitely included) had the same problem: we have to trust the maintainers. From my perspective, whether they use such tools or not doesnt really matter, since I cant review 95% of my tech stack anyway ,simply due to lack of time.

i think software will deteriorate in general by using llms extensively, tho proprietary even more so than free software. Unless I find years to spare, the choice is easy.

[lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me]

@astraleureka @ariadne Yeah, checked and it's SMP

Which yeah seems quite ridiculous for a microkernel to only get it now but well Hurd is a zombie project that aged decades.

[marisadoom@tech.lgbt]

@ariadne there really is no ethical computer use under capitalism.

[aronowski@furry.engineer]

@ariadne One idea would be to stick to using older systems, perhaps with older hardware, from the times when AI usage wasn't as widespread.

Of course they will have their vulnerabilities, so I'd use them only for processing my own trusted data, and not e.g. executing JavaScript from random websites.

Though let's keep in mind that it applies to personal computers not relying on software delivered with AI. Even if someone was to not use personal computers at all and live an analog life, the exposure to AI-delivered software and machines would still be present, e.g. when having one's sensitive medical data stored on a doctor's computer.

[thesamesam@social.treehouse.systems]

@lanodan @ariadne re Hurd: I only saw one person doing some LLM review (not of submitted patches but they took it upon themselves to submit its findings), I don't consider that tainted and I don't think it's some sort of official effort or anything, even if I don't like it.

systemd embracing it with a CLAUDE.md, using it in all PRs, commits co-authored-by it etc is different.

[thesamesam@social.treehouse.systems]

@astraleureka @lanodan @ariadne No, it was a lot of work by a handful of people over many years. It has nothing to do with LLMs.

[theonedoc@tech.lgbt]

@ariadne we stay on the last non slip taunted release and wait a year or two while it all burns down?

[bluca@fosstodon.org]

@thesamesam @lanodan @ariadne

Hurd using LLMs for reviews: perfectly ok
systemd using LLMs for reviews: TAINTED

DId I get this right?

[bluca@fosstodon.org]

@thesamesam @astraleureka @lanodan @ariadne yeah sure, if you exclude some tiny details like, er, SMP support https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-hurd/2026-02/msg00133.html

Enjoy your single-core UNTAINTED systems forever, I guess?

[ariadne@social.treehouse.systems]

@lambda hence "I guess".

[thesamesam@social.treehouse.systems]

@bluca @astraleureka @lanodan @ariadne I don't think their work was used at all. But I'm not arguing everyone should switch to Hurd, I'm just saying I don't think it's tainted, and I think some random person (same person each time) sending LLM content a handful of times to an ML isn't the same thing?

[thesamesam@social.treehouse.systems]

@bluca @lanodan @ariadne Someone deciding to send ML output a handful of times an ML is different from it being an established part of the project, sure.

(I also didn't say "perfectly ok", it's just that it's clearly different, even if one does or doesn't like it?)

[ariadne@social.treehouse.systems]

i guess my point here is that reactionary behavior does not really benefit anyone and just leads to bad decisions

[colinstu@birdbutt.com]

@ariadne what makes (current) hobbyist stuff like REDOX OS just that more exciting.

With such a strong/rigid take, yeah I don’t know where they’d expect folks to immediately move to.

[ariadne@social.treehouse.systems]

@colinstu but that's the thing. redox is not a project that we can shift our production computing to immediately.

[lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me]

@thesamesam @ariadne Ah so not yet tainted, but still meh social wise that I guess could be addressed via policy/guidelines.

[bluca@fosstodon.org]

@thesamesam @lanodan @ariadne gotcha, rules for thee but not for me

[thesamesam@social.treehouse.systems]

@bluca @lanodan @ariadne If a contributor had copilot review their PR for systemd but systemd didn't have it as part of CI or as some regular part of contribution, I'd say the same thing.

But I'm not even making rules! I'm pointing out a distinction?

[omnirabbit@social.treehouse.systems]

@ariadne it's protestantism but swapping the god from the ethereal one to "reason". if you are bad you are tainted permanently and must stone; if they stopped using AI tools it would also not be enough because they are "tainted".

this pattern repeats over and over from people who unlearned one piece but didn't deprogram the religious dogmatic patterns, and you end up here.

is Linux foundation funding the destruction of jobs, removing human contributions, destroying the world with debt, any of that? of course not! but it's still dogma.

I don't have a good answer to this, just to remind people what the actual goals and actions of orgs are and hope they listen.

[colinstu@birdbutt.com]

@ariadne indeed it’s not. Yeah the argument right now (to move asap) is just a nonstarter. It’s gong to take time (if ever) to de-AI codebases and projects. There isn’t going to be any simple fix or solution to it

For those who hold onto this, what do they use currently? They actually reap what they sow?