Post by @tinker@infosec.exchange

Damn. This quote from Linus Torvalds is... well... damning.

In response to a discussion around use of generative AI as it relates to contributions to the Linux code base, Linus (creator and lead contributor to Linux) firmly states that AI contributions are welcome.

But then he goes on and concludes with this:

"The kernel project has been and will continue to be about the technology.

Sure, the social angle of working on open source is important and often a very motivating part of the project, but in the end that's a side benefit, not the _point_ of the project.

This is *NOT* some kind of "social warrior" project, never has been, and never will be.

In the kernel community we do open source because it results in better technology, not because of religious reasons.

And so we make decisions primarily based on technical merit. Not fear of new tools.

Linus"

A lot of us are on Linux specifically because of the social and political positives. Closed source is control. Open source is democracy.

Linus doing the typical tech-bro "i don't think of politics, I only think of tech" harkens back to any number of "science without ethics" atrocities.

Linus is and has always been a tech-bro (or proto tech bro). He has his throne of power and is happy where he is. Other tech-bros want money and influence. They're all the same.

But Linus is wrong.

Tech is politics.

And his stance and guiding influence with Linux is wrong.

Linus just made a political statement and has shifted the politics and societal approach of Linux.

Source: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-media/CAHk-=wi4zC+Ze8e+p3tMv8TtG_80KzsZ1syL9anBtmEh5Z40vg@mail.gmail.com/

#linux #solarPunk #Linus #AI #openSource

screenshot of Linus' remarks stating: The kernel project has been and will continue to be about the technology.

Sure, the social angle of working on open source is important and often a very motivating part of the project, but in the end that's a side benefit, not the _point_ of the project.

This is *NOT* some kind of "social warrior" project, never has been, and never will be.

In the kernel community we do open source because it results in better technology, not because of religious reasons.

And so we make decisions primarily based on technical merit. Not fear of new tools.

Linus" — screenshot of Linus' remarks stating: The kernel project has been and will continue to be about the technology. Sure, the social angle of working on open source is important and often a very motivating part of the project, but in the end that's a side benefit, not the _point_ of the project. This is *NOT* some kind of "social warrior" project, never has been, and never will be. In the kernel community we do open source because it results in better technology, not because of religious reasons. And so we make decisions primarily based on technical merit. Not fear of new tools. Linus"

Re: Linking Patchwork with Sashiko? - Linus Torvalds

#linus #solarpunk #linux #opensource #ai

77 Replies

0 Boosts

David Ginn

@david@social.piconet.work 3 hours ago

@tinker Has he been encouraging people to fork the kernel because he knows it is difficult and thinks nobody has the will?

Tinker ☀️

@tinker@infosec.exchange 2 hours ago

@david - I dont even think he goes that deep. It's more of a flippant "fuck off and die, make your own thing then" than anything else.

David Ginn

@david@social.piconet.work 2 hours ago

@tinker Its sad because people tend to go to Linux to get away from the nasty people, and then we have this guy controlling something so fundamental. Well perhaps he’ll get his wish: in the future someone may make an AI powerful enough to make a compatible kernel scraped from his kernel - different enough to be considered new, and everyone will dump the Linux one.

Eastern Bloc

@las_lallero@puntarella.party 4 hours ago

@tinker must be the heat

Simon Zerafa

@simonzerafa@infosec.exchange 5 hours ago

@tinker

I can't see Linus being any more wrong on this.

If he's ignoring the political and social aspects then that his decision but for thousands of people working on FLOSS that is the point.

He's happy to do free work for billionaires and massive businesses?

Also there is no aspects of human existence that isn't political.

Anne O'neam

@anneoneam@mastodon.online 7 hours ago

@tinker It's not some new development. He has been focused on the technical side since basically forever.

Tinker ☀️

@tinker@infosec.exchange 5 hours ago

@anneoneam - (Editing this a bit to reflect a better tone. The previous version came across as rude)

I don't understand your reply and I'm trying to understand it.

So I ask, sincerely so as to better understand: What is the underlying goal in your message?

The way I currently read it (and I might be totally wrong) is that you're saying something along the lines of "That because this is not new its not worthwhile to discuss?"

To use an extreme hyperbole, it's would be akin to saying "If a person just now started abusing kittens, that would be bad. But if this was the 20th time they've abused kittens, that makes it good? Or at least not notable?"

If so, Wouldn't the fact that it's "not some new development" make this worse?

Your response makes it seem like because he's always been bad we shouldnt talk about it anymore. It seems dismissive.

So. I ask sincerely. What is the greater message you're wanting to convey?

⠠⠵ avuko

@avuko@infosec.exchange 5 hours ago

@tinker @anneoneam

I've seen quite a few of these comments, especially from a number of marginalised people who tried to be a part of the Linux community and clashed with this guy and others like him.

I've taken the comments as "we've known (and experienced) this guy was a privileged arsehole. You could have believed us when we told you your hero(es) sucked decades ago."

My conclusion based on their feedback:

https://infosec.exchange/@avuko/116930490119016322

Tinker ☀️

@tinker@infosec.exchange 5 hours ago

@avuko @anneoneam - It's absolutely fair to say "i told y'all so". In which case this is just further evidence.

There have been lots if "he's been like this forever, and it doesn't look like he's changed. This is bad"

Heck, I even mention all of that in my conclusion in the original post.

But the response here seems to be designed as a conversation ender, not a response that is furthering the conversation (I may be absolutely wrong here which is why I asked for clarification).

2 more replies

aardvark

@aardvark@ioc.exchange 11 hours ago

@tinker it is ironic and seeming un-self-aware to disclaim “social warrior” nearness when, c’mon, what is Linux if not a social warrior product?

Tinker ☀️

@tinker@infosec.exchange 5 hours ago

@aardvark 💯

omar

@omar@mastodon.bsd.cafe 17 hours ago

@tinker

No politics?
He didn’t mind expelling Russian developers, did he?

shironeko

@shironeko@fedi.tesaguri.club 17 hours ago

@tinker this has always been his position? it's public knowledge at least since the tevoization debacle.

Tinker ☀️

@tinker@infosec.exchange 16 hours ago

@shironeko - yeah i dont think him always holding this position lessens the damning statement. If anything it makes it worse.

Belakor

@nurglerider@mastodon.social 21 hours ago

@tinker The end result will be predictable. At some point some dufus will create a pull request with some terrible/dangerous LLM created code that manages to slip past review and the Linux community will pay the price.

This is the reality of tech-bro leadership.

Lone Spelunker

@lonespelunker@mastodon.social 21 hours ago

@tinker

"And so we make decisions primarily based on technical merit. Not fear of new tools."

But we DO make decisions based on *infatuation* with new tools, apparently.

We know that generative AI makes errors, errors which are specifically hard to spot because LLMs produce convincing results, not correct results.

So, short of active sabotage, I can't think of a more likely vector for errors, vulnerabilities, and instabilities to creep into the Linux kernel than adopting AI coding for it.

aardvark

@aardvark@ioc.exchange 23 hours ago

@tinker I’m trying to understand something that seems unspoken here. Is the fundamental issue a premise that AI is evil, therefore anyone who doesn’t reject it is corrupt? I’m seriously just trying to make sure I understand what I’m reading.

Tinker ☀️

@tinker@infosec.exchange 22 hours ago

@aardvark - No. This is the issue:

Big AI (read: that has central compute in big data centers that destroy local environments and economies) are being forced on everyone through a concerted effort involving forced adaptation, govt subsidies, and corporate subsidies. The underlying goals are wealth transfer, compute control, and information control.

Those in power and leadership that ignore this are at best complicit in furthering the harm and are at worst actively pushing, facilitating, and enacting harm.

Those that use LLMs often see a localized and immediate benefit (eg in their work or daily convenience), but at a greater long term and deep expense.

But while I don't think users should use LLMs, many don't have a choice and many folks would choose short term immediate gains over long term harm because they lack leverage and just have to survive.

So, in the original post, I am specifically targeting the leader. Who at best is complicit. And at worst is at fault.

#AI #Linux #Linus

aardvark

@aardvark@ioc.exchange 17 hours ago

@tinker and when the model runs entirely on my own machine?

Tinker ☀️

@tinker@infosec.exchange 16 hours ago

@aardvark - then we're not talking about the same things, are we?

1 more replies

aardvark

@aardvark@ioc.exchange 17 hours ago

@tinker I’m not seeing much daylight between what you said no to and what you go on to describe as the issue.

Tinker ☀️

@tinker@infosec.exchange 16 hours ago

@aardvark - i never said that "anyone who doesnt reject it is corrupt" for one. The reply goes into detail of who i stand against and that isnt "anyone". i go on to further show how many users might use it without being considered corrupt as well.

kworker 💻🏴🌱

@kworker@kolektiva.social 22 hours ago

@tinker @aardvark I think for a number of users, they don't necessarily consider how exactly the strings of text from an LLM appear in a window on their computer. It's essentially words magically appearing from the void. Many would change their mind if they had to live next to the datacenters that actually produce those strings. Many are already starting to pay increased electricity costs to subsidize them, whether they actually use them or not.

Tinker ☀️

@tinker@infosec.exchange 16 hours ago

@kworker @aardvark 💯

hansup

@hans@mastodon.hansup.be yesterday

@tinker
Apparently all tech needs to be by default evil. Big or small, evil or good tech, it is all MICE: money, ideology, corruption and ego.

Paweł

@grono@mastodon.com.pl yesterday

@tinker
It's simply not feasible for a project of such scale to remain AI-free anymore.

There's no going back, whether you like it or not.

Tinker ☀️

@tinker@infosec.exchange yesterday

@grono

Borg meme that states "resistance is futile".

Alexandre Klein

@TheyCallMeHacked@social.tchncs.de yesterday

@tinker I swear, someone needs to make high quality contributions to the kernel with “Assisted-by: slavery” or “Assisted-by: child labour” to see if Linus’ stance on “It’s about tech, not politics” changes…

Jackie 🍉🏳️‍⚧️☭

@burnoutqueen@todon.nl yesterday

@tinker

The problem is that LLMs have no technical merit for the purpose. Linus is allowing right wing corporate politics to pollute his brain

Tinker ☀️

@tinker@infosec.exchange yesterday

@burnoutqueen - Further, even if it did have merit for the purpose, we still shouldn't use it.

Jackie 🍉🏳️‍⚧️☭

@burnoutqueen@todon.nl 24 hours ago

@tinker

The thing is that a technology should be evaluated for its costs as well as its outcomes.

If the cost of the technology outstrips its utility, it's unfit for purpose. And AI is a technology that only exists because there is a massive subsidy in propping it up and an associated cover up ensuring its costs are hidden

Tinker ☀️

@tinker@infosec.exchange 22 hours ago

@burnoutqueen 💯