alt Hacker NewsThe rate at which AI introduces bugs is higher than human ones about 2x more bugs than humans.
Human slop is equally as bad, but this is not what Linus chose in this case, he chose to accept the higher risk of almost 2x as much more bugs using LLMs which lead to the introduction of LLM slop.
I don't care if it is Linus or anyone else, slop is slop human or not, with LLMs it is far worse.
Replies
simianwords • today at 11:08 AM
This is the kind of argument Linus was attacking. His tone against the anti-ai commitment in Linux now makes sense.
kelnos • today at 10:47 AM
It sounds like you've defined "slop" as "anything an LLM produces". Seems unlikely you're going to get much agreement here.
➕ show 1 reply
If the human is doing a proper workflow for the AI, I'm not so sure it's big central. Yes, AI needs to be guided strongly, and if it's not, it makes very poor choices/decisions routinely, but that's why you keep an engineer controlling the process.
I force all work to be split up into chunks, properly investigated, spiked, and planned out, and then implemented via TDD (with only system-boundary mocking permitted). It's not perfect, but I've seen regression bugs very much cut so far.
Beyond that, if it's a GUI app, I also require the TDD cycle to require GUI tests with screenshot evidence, and proper assert statements.