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

[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?

[omnirabbit@social.treehouse.systems]

@ariadne I don't want to see the world eaten by AI but people use the tool and it drives results for them. There's nowhere much else to go.
It's like Stallman arguing for owning every piece of your machine - eventually, you have some closed source firmware blob. Purity vs reality.

[ariadne@social.treehouse.systems]

@colinstu at least in my case, every time i've embraced LLM technology, i've come to regret it basically immediately.

case in point: grammarly copyediting feature

[ariadne@social.treehouse.systems]

@thesamesam @bluca @lanodan personally, i don't even think i *care* about LLM-based reviews.

what i care about is LLM-based code generation because every time i've interacted with people using those tools to produce changesets, it's been fucking miserable

[thesamesam@social.treehouse.systems]

@ariadne @bluca @lanodan I've sort of come to this position as well, especially sympathising w/ what Lennart says about Bad Guys already using LLMs to find vulnerabilities, so may as well try to leverage them to do some good.

Don't love it still but I definitely feel warmer to it than the rest.

[ariadne@social.treehouse.systems]

@thesamesam @bluca @lanodan i guess to me, it feels unnatural and jarring to argue with a chatbot in a code review.

but that is far less harmful than dealing with changesets where the author does not even fucking know what he is submitting and cannot defend his work.

*that* is true misery as a maintainer.

[bluca@fosstodon.org]

@thesamesam @lanodan @ariadne and I'm pointing out that the distinction is specious and a glaring case of double standards. Everyone uses who uses these tools does so in different ways, and you don't get to do moral grandstanding just because you arbitrarily drew a line in the sand where it's most convenient for you, and not a millimeter further. Doesn't work that way, sorry

[ariadne@social.treehouse.systems]

@thesamesam @bluca @lanodan basically the problem is AI as force multiplier for charlatanism.

claude making it miserable for charlatans to get their PRs merged actually seems like a positive use of the technology...

[lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me]

@thesamesam @ariadne @bluca Kind of still feels bad given how overblown a lot of security vulnerabilities are (I guess ICANN and registries will get more money from website-logo vulns), plus imagine getting a big wave of low-impact security vulnerabilities.

But well that's roughly the same issues as with fuzzers, except it's combined with codegen this time.