Note, LLMs are very good at finding suspect “security issues” in kernel code these days. But even with the best of the current and next generation tools, at least 1/3 of the results they generate are flat out wrong or harmful. So, if you think your LLM-found/fixed issue in a drivers/staging/ file is really valid, it’s fine to submit it BUT you must have first tested it on the actual hardware for the driver, and described how you have done so, in order for us to be willing to take the change.
Record time speedrun from “I’m putting my foot down in favor of AI” to “at least 1/3 of patches are flat out wrong or harmful”, eh?
It’s easy to not have a problem with AI merge requests when you have a whole team of people filtering out the garbage before it gets to you.
It was “I’m putting my foot down in favor of AI” for finding security flaws and triaging issues, not writing code. Shit’s useful for things that can be easily verified, like security flaws, less so (OK, crap) for writing maintainable code in a massive codebase with highly complex interactions.
AI is a tool, its just that most people seem to not understand that you don’t want to use a screw driver as a hammer
And before anyone goes crazy about me defending AI, I’m not. At least not the AI we see today with the world destroying data centers and so on. Every tool has its uses, so does AI, its just that the real use cases are highly limited