> de-slopping them and possibly even forking
Or, hear me out, they could instead just improve and contribute the code they think is suboptimal
Or, hear me out, they could instead just improve and contribute the code they think is suboptimal
> ...it is my intention that I and others will audit these projects in the future, de-slopping them...
for my part, when i do work on this, what i will do is this: re-use existing nuke.list mechanism in lbmk (used already to delete dubious files, e.g. code files with unclear licensing in u-boot) to delete the slopped files. then provide cleaned versions of the same files, with necessary patching re-written as necessary, and files that use it patched to include e.g. foo.deslop.c instead of foo.c - then git history is removed inside tarballs. filter out the changelogs for projects accordingly.
this is the most reasonable way to do it on projects with very little slop. with projects that become almost entirely slop, a hard fork becomes necessary.
> think AI makes you super hacker? think again: https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.09089 ["Measuring the Impact of Early-2025 AI on Experienced Open-Source Developer Productivity"]
> https://blog.codeberg.org/protecting-our-floss-commons-from-...
> consider that the infrastructure for AI is economically unsustainable; when the bubble bursts, and it will, we will suddenly be left with millions of people thoroughly deskilled who will be useless. lots of reeducation needed, and lots of people will just be left behind.
> consider that it is controlled by only a minority of very wealthy individuals; with it, they have unprecedented control over human thought through manipulation of information, and control over what information is presented through filtering (what they call training).
> AI is a threat to the health and democracy of our entire world.
> libreboot will not facilitate its use. AI is the most dangerous technology ever invented by human beings.
...
They have plenty of reasons not to.
This one especially really just shows they are cherry picking things which support a particular position regardless of the relevance, the difference between Early-2025 AI and Late-2026 AI is absolutely massive. Early 2026 it was reported by Greg Kroah-Hartman that AI bug reports rapidly went from obviously wrong or low quality to being real reports.[0] The kernel now has AI tooling heavily integrated into patch review workflows as well with quite good results.[1]
> They have plenty of reasons not to.
Not really any good reasons however.
[0] https://www.theregister.com/software/2026/03/26/linux-kernel...
If you only accept papers that were published in reputable venues and analyze LLMs that are less than a month old, you are left with zero useful papers (since writing a useful paper takes longer than a month). It is impossible to have an intellectual discussion if all scientific material is disregarded.
Why would one look only at formal published scientific papers? Especially if the only publications are known to be quite outdated and highly likely to be no longer particularly relevant anymore.
> It is impossible to have an intellectual discussion if all scientific material is disregarded.
One can certainly have an intellectual discussion even for areas without relevant formal published scientific papers.
Certainly one can do so if the subject matter is in the area of your own expertise, that can even lead to scientific papers being written.
I'm an experienced open source developer leveraging AI tools for linux kernel, u-boot and buildroot contributions in addition to reverse engineering, so clearly this subject is well within my area of expertise regardless of what some outdated published research says.
I probably wouldn't even disagree with that paper's assessment at the time, however the situation is very different now. I have noticed that there is an issue with many experienced open source developers simply having not figured out how to properly leverage AI for open source projects they work on. Probably one reason for this is that productive workflows with AI are often very different from previous workflows and it takes some practice to figure out how to best use AI tools, these best practice can also change over time.
No. No it is not, despite how many times AI proponents like to claim it is.
Why do you think there isn't a huge difference? I've used AI tools over this time period and the difference is very obvious.
what do you mean by this, that costs will become too high and people won't afford it? hardware won't go up in smoke "when the bubble bursts"