> On 07/25/2026 1:07 PM CEST Simon Jakobi via ghc-devs <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Ben! > > Am Fr., 24. Juli 2026 um 15:52 Uhr schrieb Benjamin Redelings via > ghc-devs <[email protected]>: > > > See: "Debating the role of large language models in the kernel > > community" -- there's a section called "Email from Sashiko" > > > > https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/1083275/d5518174ec4dcbcb/ > > Thanks! That's really interesting! > > This bit in particular makes me hopeful (emphasis mine): > > > Ted Ts'o said that Sashiko finds problems that human reviewers might not > > notice, but that it is not a substitute for human review: "I agree that if > > reviewers stop doing this, we would be in a world of hurt". **He also said, > > in a different discussion, that "one of the things that really excites me > > about Sashiko is that it reduces my workload"** > > (Ted Ts'o is the principal maintainer of the ext4 filesystem.)
I agree this quote (including the "world of hurt" part!) are quite relevant. The LWN link was a very enlightening read, both for the positives and negatives of the path the Linux kernel has taken. A couple other quotes worth thinking on: "Our maintainers are not scaling to handle this new flood, and I fear we are going to see some unfortunate things merged. One LLM-driven newcomer recently nearly succeeded in establishing himself as the maintainer of lib/." There's also advice to not "conflat[e] generative AI with analytic uses of AI and actually be really clear about this in public messaging. Sashiko can be compared to other tools, but really - I don't think that comparison is remotely fair with stuff like generative AI. The logistics are just too different, and it really does feel like it gives people the wrong idea." "In Ireland we are seeing AI-driven DC growth consume ever more power - we're at circa 25% of our entire grid generation now (predicted to hit 30% or so in next year or so)! Our government will require new DCs to have their own generation, but that will be largely gas-backed - HCs." "This position is worth reflecting upon for a moment. Developers will, given a chance, describe a number of ethical misgivings about these tools. They will talk about the industry's decision to ignore copyright and the possibility that LLM output violates copyrights. They may mention the environmental costs of untold gigawatts of computing power being directed toward these models, or the effects of data-center construction on the communities around them. Developers may express concerns about how these models are controlled by oligarchs, or about the systemic economic risk posed by the huge portion of the economy being pulled into this industry. They might even spare a moment to commiserate with web-site operators who are struggling to contend with scraping by bot networks." "A tool that dramatically lowers the bar required to generate huge amounts of sniff-test passing slop is in fact, not like other tools. And it does need some level of special consideration, even if it's not being banned." Cheers, Tom _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
