4 ms·

I think using AI for kernel dev vs AI for CRUD dev is an important distinction. In my company of mostly CRUD development, we are not pressured to use AI but we

I think using AI for kernel dev vs AI for CRUD dev is an important distinction. In my company of mostly CRUD development, we are not pressured to use AI but we all use it willingly. There are a few who complain but they are a loud minority - almost everyone likes this tech. The reason I asked you is because I already have anecdotes and real life data for CRUD devs. I just can't fathom why people would be pressured to use AI. My hunch is that some people kind of begrudgingly admit that it actually makes people faster and they use it. These kind of people would rather like doing things a bit slowly.

bgregs 5d ago
> I think using AI for kernel dev vs AI for CRUD dev is an important distinction. I completely agree! > I just can't fathom why people would be pressured to use AI. I can only speculate, and I obviously don't have any insight into why the mandates and usage targets exist, so I won't comment on that. I absolutely see value in using AI tooling as an additional validation step, but the generative side is what gives me pause. Maybe I've just seen too many cases of irresponsible use, but I'm not fully convinced that using the tools for _writing_ code produces better results. You were right to callout the distinction, and my apologies if I responded too bluntly. One of your original replies referred to company mandates as "conspiracy theories", which is where my hesitation to engage came from. Anyway, I think we're largely in agreement regarding your closing paragraph.
- simianwords 5d ago
  No issues, glad that we agree. I personally do use it for generative and I fully see the value for my CRUD engineer type of use. I think kernel development requires more scrutiny and we are not there yet where we can blindly use LLMs for Linux. But my main point is that it is a bit strange to see these patches that are self disclosed as AI use and then come to conclusion that they were pressured to use it rather then use it because it is useful. I have never come across this kind of pressure, which is why I call it a conspiracy theory.

bgregs 5d ago

> I think using AI for kernel dev vs AI for CRUD dev is an important distinction. I completely agree! > I just can't fathom why people would be pressured to use AI. I can only speculate, and I obviously don't have any insight into why the mandates and usage targets exist, so I won't comment on that. I absolutely see value in using AI tooling as an additional validation step, but the generative side is what gives me pause. Maybe I've just seen too many cases of irresponsible use, but I'm not fully convinced that using the tools for _writing_ code produces better results. You were right to callout the distinction, and my apologies if I responded too bluntly. One of your original replies referred to company mandates as "conspiracy theories", which is where my hesitation to engage came from. Anyway, I think we're largely in agreement regarding your closing paragraph.

simianwords 5d ago
No issues, glad that we agree. I personally do use it for generative and I fully see the value for my CRUD engineer type of use. I think kernel development requires more scrutiny and we are not there yet where we can blindly use LLMs for Linux. But my main point is that it is a bit strange to see these patches that are self disclosed as AI use and then come to conclusion that they were pressured to use it rather then use it because it is useful. I have never come across this kind of pressure, which is why I call it a conspiracy theory.