23
Fedora adopts policy of accepting code written by LLMs smfh
(discussion.fedoraproject.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2025
23 points (100.0% liked)
technology
24274 readers
248 users here now
On the road to fully automated luxury gay space communism.
Spreading Linux propaganda since 2020
- Ways to run Microsoft/Adobe and more on Linux
- The Ultimate FOSS Guide For Android
- Great libre software on Windows
- Hey you, the lib still using Chrome. Read this post!
Rules:
- 1. Obviously abide by the sitewide code of conduct. Bigotry will be met with an immediate ban
- 2. This community is about technology. Offtopic is permitted as long as it is kept in the comment sections
- 3. Although this is not /c/libre, FOSS related posting is tolerated, and even welcome in the case of effort posts
- 4. We believe technology should be liberating. As such, avoid promoting proprietary and/or bourgeois technology
- 5. Explanatory posts to correct the potential mistakes a comrade made in a post of their own are allowed, as long as they remain respectful
- 6. No crypto (Bitcoin, NFT, etc.) speculation, unless it is purely informative and not too cringe
- 7. Absolutely no tech bro shit. If you have a good opinion of Silicon Valley billionaires please manifest yourself so we can ban you.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
As pointed out elsewhere and as i think would make some intuitive sense, they are not just directly letting chatgpt write an update to the OS, but making rules for how contributors who use AI code are to be treated (The same as any other coder, with the same requirements).
Now if they were using AI to also vet the code that would end with computers exploding.
I think the most likely bad result from this will be a lot of people without the necessary skill tying up other people's time looking through their vibe coded nonsense to shoot it down. But that was going to happen anyway.
From my (admittedly, limited) experience, sign-offs are often relatively shallow sanity checks. Nothing about this patch looks egregious? It solves a known problem? It makes it though the CI pipeline? Approved. When dealing with languages like C, where very subtle mistakes can introduce defects and vulnerabilities, I would not trust a LLM to do the brunt of the due diligence which would ordinarily be coming from the contributor (who typically spends a lot more time thinking about the problem than the person signing off on the patch). I'll admit this isn't a novel problem, but the amount of scrutiny applied to submissions will definitely need to increase if this becomes a standard process.