220
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
220 points (91.0% liked)
Technology
87712 readers
3041 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
LLMs suck at writing code, but they are absolutely amazing at reading code and finding bugs. I am firmly against the usage of LLMs to write anything, but they have a place as a diagnostics tool when verified by a human.
IMO: Specifically, they're bad at architecture and refactoring a small project into a large project. You have to jump through some hoops to make it craft something that needs more than 8m of context ram. If you can manage orchestration and multi-agents that don't need to know each others context, you can start to pull off bigger stuff, but it's not a forgone conclusion that it'll be fine. The worst output comes from it getting stuck on something and trying less likely answers successively until it works. You really have to watch for it to struggle and at the very least stop and start to try some new randoms.
Also, anything other than Claude-code with some really well-done project definitions is a waste of time.
I find that depends a LOT on what you're asking the LLM to write, how well you're specifying it, etc. As for the code reviews, if it's code that matters: remember to open a new instance and ask the exact same question again on the code that has been reviewed and "fixed". Back a year ago, that could get you into a waffle-loop where the engine would change its mind back and forth about what's optimal and just oscillate between the two. These days they seem to record (and read) enough context to prevent that behavior, but I definitely get behavior of: "Are there any bugs?" "Yes, here are seven bugs." "Fix those bugs." "The bugs are fixed." (and they ususally really are...) "Are there any more bugs?" "No, we have fixed ALL the bugs." "Are you sure, look again." "Yes, I am sure we have found and fixed ALL the bugs."
new context window
"Are there any bugs?" "Yes, here are seven bugs." different bugs.
I did that on a bigger project and literally repeated 20 times, finding 140 real bugs - granted, the later bugs were getting pretty trivial / far out edge cases, but they were still real, still fixed, still denied there were any more bugs until opening a fresh context and asking again. This was on Google's Gemini 3.7 Flash High... Claude Opus 4.8+ seems quite a bit better about being able to continue in a context without becoming blind to issues "it has already solved."
Line completion is pretty damn handy, it's when you start asking for whole functions that things go downhill
Yeah I've been using LLM's in Rider for over a decade. I don't have a problem with LLM's. I do have a problem with how they're currently used, and how people keep trying to use them to replace their own thinking.
I think they have a place in the coding scene, a limited niche place, but a place none the less. They just aren't a replacement for software engineers. Architecture and intention are the big differences to me. An LLM cannot understand intention, it just makes statistical guesses that are often wrong.
True, when you give a prompt like: "make me a contact management / constant contact app which I can deploy on AWS and scale to 100,000 users." you get, mostly garbage. If you specify how you want the UX to flow, what fields are most important, what fields should be included in deeper interfaces, what the scheduling looks like, how it gets tuned, what the reports look like, etc. etc. etc. - in other words: give it real requirements and specifications.
Then, pay attention as it develops, you'll ususally find that the requirements you gave it aren't exactly what you really wanted, and when you see what it built that doesn't match with your visions, you can have it revise the requirements and specs.
Sure, but for me its just faster to write it myself, in a way that needs to fit into the project. And while I'm aware you can give this context to an LLM, it still can't read what your previous intentions were, nor what they are currently. So its hard for it to build on it.
To me they're best as auto-complete, or research tools in the same vein as StackOverflow. Something to help speed up your existing workflow. Also good at translating both spoken languages, and functions into other coding languages. Everything else seems to get in the way for me.
There are already several large projects that have hundreds of thousands of users and those projects were almost completely vibe coded. It's almost the entire retro "recomp" scene now.
I have done several smaller projects with it, and they have been stable / performant for months - better than similar stuff I coded years earlier and spent 5-10x the effort on.
Opus-class and higher models are actually great at writing code, but maybe it's language dependent? I primarily work in TypeScript.
More than anything, it depends on the developer using it. In my experience, most are just slop shovelers that don't read or review what Claude does. Then it falls on the PR reviewer (me) to be an asshole: Did you review your own code? Do you understand what this part over here does? Why did you choose this method versus alternatives?
Unless you tell Claude/Opus otherwise, it's not going to take the initiative to refactor things, tidy up parts it didn't touch, or hell, it won't even spellcheck things. Can you really call it a language model if it outputs misspelled words? Its unit tests are great boilerplate but never comprehensive enough for me.
Claude is the developer that puts zero pride or effort in their work beyond the bare minimum to not get fired.
Prompting for refactoring, requirements, specifications, unit tests, integration tests, distribution / install scripts, all of those "good ideas" are things you need to nudge even Claude to do. Once you get it in the habit of doing them it does them automatically more often but still requires the occasional nudge.
I'm not terribly concerned if people write code and test it with AI, so long as they verify the results themselves.
I recently saw someone try to add a PR to something on github with thousands of lines of changes and then they got mad when people didn't want to do the free labour verifying it. That is a bullshit use of AI
AI or far-east coders, we encourage them to keep their PRs as small as possible.
The lemmysphere will never agree
If we ever find a way to deal with the whole "burning the planet" issue, their best use case is to find and match patterns, not to imitate them.
The idea of using a language model to process search engine input isn't the dumbest part about Gemini and plenty of people report good results finding information easier and quicker with ChatGPT. In those cases, the deviation from rigid keywords is desirable because it can match results with related words rather than literal word-matching. Google Search already did a decent job at that (before the enshittification ran rampant), which more complex language models could improve even further.
The landmine is in their reproduction of those results, where the generated "summary" is the equivalent of a cunning bullshitter that convincingly sounds like he understood the topic but actually has no clue and just delivers a best guess. That's where the deviation becomes a risk of misinformation or introducing bugs.
They should narrow things down by finding the likely answers where that matters, not produce more stuff that humans will have to double-check.
So far.