-15
Torvalds: AI Is the New Compiler, Not the New Programmer - “100% of their code Is written by compilers too" (pbxscience.com)
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by to c/programming@programming.dev
16 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

At the Linux Foundation’s Open Source Summit, the Linux creator argued that AI-written code claims are misleading — and warned that a wave of low-quality, AI-generated bug reports is quietly burning out the maintainers who keep open source running.

[...]

Speaking on stage, Torvalds said the framing misses an obvious historical parallel. Compilers have translated essentially all shipped source code into machine code for decades, he noted, yet no engineer describes their software as “compiler-written.” AI, in his view, belongs in the same category — a powerful productivity layer sitting on top of human design and understanding, not a replacement for it.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 11 points 2 months ago* (10 children)

@HaraldvonBlauzahn@feddit.org , may I ask why do you change the title so awfully it does not only not state the same as the article but misleads it?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (8 children)

    Agreed. This post's current title does not appear in the link, and the link does not contain a quote that can be remotely matched to this post's title.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

    Indeed. Thank you very much! The OP has likely no clue what the article is about even.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

    From the article:

    https://pbxscience.com/torvalds-ai-is-the-new-compiler-not-the-new-programmer/

    Speaking on stage, Torvalds said the framing misses an obvious historical parallel. Compilers have translated essentially all shipped source code into machine code for decades, he noted, yet no engineer describes their software as “compiler-written.” AI, in his view, belongs in the same category — a powerful productivity layer sitting on top of human design and understanding, not a replacement for it.Linux & Unix

    “When I see people saying, ‘Hey, 99% of our code is written by AI,’ I literally get angry, because those same people — I can pretty much guarantee — that 100% of their code is written by compilers.”

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] -2 points 2 months ago* (3 children)

    and the link does not contain a quote that can be remotely matched to this post’s title.

    That's not the case - first part pharaphrases Torvalds, second part cites him.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago* (2 children)

    Torvalds was careful to frame this as a correction of language rather than a rejection of the technology itself.

    You "paraphrased" into oblivion the very thing Mr. Torvalds was trying to be careful about, contorting it into click bait rather than the nuance that he and the article are trying to get across.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 2 months ago

    From the article:

    Speaking on stage, Torvalds said the framing misses an obvious historical parallel. Compilers have translated essentially all shipped source code into machine code for decades, he noted, yet no engineer describes their software as “compiler-written.” AI, in his view, belongs in the same category — a powerful productivity layer sitting on top of human design and understanding, not a replacement for it.Linux & Unix

    “When I see people saying, ‘Hey, 99% of our code is written by AI,’ I literally get angry, because those same people — I can pretty much guarantee — that 100% of their code is written by compilers.”

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

    It is first the web pages title suggestion (see the URL if the link) followed by the title of the article.

    And I don't think the first part is awful - it sums up the main idea in few words.

    See existing discussion in the technology@lemmy.world post, submitted by somebody else.

    Edit: Whether the site-suggested page title in the first part is really a good title is somewhat subjective and therefore debatable. The question is does it sum up precisely a main topic of the article?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent