Hacker News

points by vconnor 3 days ago | 0 comments

Elsewhere in the email thread:

Picking at random a successful and unsuccessful LLM-generated review from the dashboard, the successful review consists of 734 words (~2.5 printed pages) and the unsuccessful review weighs in at a whopping 1,535 words (~5 printed pages). I haven't tried to fully read either report, nor spend brain cycles checking if the LLM output is legitimate or not. I just want to emphasize the many orders of magnitude change in review size that's being generated, and that uploaders may need to spend time trying to review and understand in this new process.

A bit rude to expect people to swallow 5 pages of slop to figure out why review failed.

EDIT: made my comment more constructive, but originally asked if any distro has adopted a hard anti-AI stance.

[–] BSDobelix 3 days ago

>>Any distro that have adopted a hard anti-AI stance?

Yes all the BSD's, and i think with the best explanation, since one cannot proof what license the llm's output has, one cannot legally implement the output under the BSD-License.

But what about Linux? They just dont care, they have the money, corporate backing and with that, all the power.

[–] account42 3 days ago

Unfortunately, as we can see here isn't not just the corporate projects that are susceptible to people ignoring morals in the name of pRoDuCtIvIty. It's really sad to see Debian of all distros, who where one of the major sources of what it means for software to be free, to go down this road and so quickly.

[–] BSDobelix 3 days ago

Maybe this is the time to revive HURD?

[–] conor- 17 hours ago

No need for a revival - it seems to still be under active development and making some meaningful progress in terms of soon being usable on real hardware.

https://www.gentoo.org/news/2026/04/01/gentoo-hurd.html

https://guix.gnu.org/blog/2026/the-64-bit-hurd/

[–] none_to_remain 3 days ago

No Linux distro can have a hard anti-AI stance

[–] vconnor 3 days ago

A distro is not responsible for its packages, but it can be responsible over its processes.

Linux itself is in any case tainted, but some of us care to contain the plague however possible.

[–] account42 3 days ago

Of course it can. It would mean not including some software or hard-forking it from pre-AI versions which would be difficult. But it can be done and I would seriously consider using such a distro if it was available.

[–] DaSHacka 2 days ago

Well, the BSDs are right there.

[–] bigfishrunning 3 days ago

Why not? Linux distributions contain tons of packages that are not the Linux kernel, and just because AI patches have been accepted in one place doesn't mean they'll be accepted elsewhere.

[–] Grombobulous 3 days ago

Because Linux distributions must contain the Linux kernel, which is built with the assistance of AI tooling.

It does have very strict standards, but AI is explicitly allowed to be used in the aid of development of the Linux kernel.

You can't be hard-no-AI as a Linux distribution because it would be like having a vegan car company where the seat supplier used leather. You'd have to fork the Linux kernel from the last version that was developed before LLMs were adopted, or write your own kernel.

[–] znpy 3 days ago

I’d rather have a detailed explanation of why my contributions are being rejected rather than the complete opposite which is often something along the lines of “no”