Linux

10336 readers

423 users here now

A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)

Also, check out:

Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Ategon@programming.dev

anzo@programming.dev

dwraf_of_ignorance@programming.dev

438

Linus Torvalds is OK with vibe coding as long as it's not used for anything that matters (www.theregister.com)

submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by cm0002@toast.ooo to c/linux@programming.dev

35 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Linux and Git inventor Linus Torvalds discussed AI in software development in an interview earlier this month, describing himself as "fairly positive" about vibe coding, but as a way into computing, not for production coding where it would likely be horrible to maintain.

Torvalds was interviewed by Dirk Hohndel, head of open source at Verizon, at the Linux Foundation Open Source Summit in Seoul, South Korea, earlier this month.

Torvalds is technical lead and maintainer of the Linux kernel, but said that "for the last almost 20 years, I've not been a programmer." As for Git, which he invented, "I really just look at it from the side."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] grindemup@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I get your argument just fine, and as I said I think you have a very credible and interesting point regarding the fact that LLM outputs are a nondeterministic abstraction. But if you consider LLMs as an abstraction in generating code, why not humans?? I don't see the principled distinction, as human devs are also code generators.

This is sensible in practice, since if someone needs to build something, they can either hire a dev or they can vibe code it themselves. Either way, they will end up with deterministic code (albeit perhaps very different quality depending on the code generator).

[–] Dekkia@this.doesnotcut.it 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Your argument is based on the assumtion that AI "thinks" in the same way humans do. Which it does not, since it doesn't think at all.

And being called a tool to generate code is borderline insulting tbh.

[–] grindemup@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago

No my argument does not depend on that at all, it merely depends on the distinction between generating code (which LLMs do in a nondeterministic manner) and compiling/running the generated code (which happens, as with code written by humans, in a deterministic manner). Also I did not call humans tools.