[consp]

> I think this behavior is very silly and people are just trying to justify their hate to AI by latching onto every possible thing

It's not silly to have issues with something. People act on their issues. Possibly not the issue underlying the commit at hand here but something else, and act on it which makes it something to consider. My guess is people are tired of the "AI is the greatest thing since [cultural reference]" being forced down their throat and grasp at every straw to combat it, which is a sane response in my opinion and should be taken into account.

[throwaway7356]

> and grasp at every straw to combat it, which is a sane response

Attacking every open source maintainer who might use AI for the sin of having used AI because one hates AI is just abusive behavior, not "sane response".

What would the "sane response" be for people tired of the "AI is being forced down my throat and I need to combat it by attacking open source maintainers" side? Grasp at every straw to combat such behavior?

[mbgerring]

It looks like they’re being attacked because their mission critical software is suddenly experiencing regressions, and the evidence suggests those regressions are in part caused by AI.

The regressions are the issue. If the software was working as expected, no one would be coming after them for “the sin of using AI”.

[Sacho]

Their mission critical software has bugs in it - security issues, which the rsync maintainer is trying to fix. In his attempt, he introduced regressions*(maybe - because some of the reported regressions list exactly the security issue that is being fixed as their use case...). This happens every day to thousands and thousands of software projects. This is why we have pinned versions, release schedules, different release philosophies...none of this is new.

I don't understand what novel problem you think you've uncovered here.

[mbrumlow]

I thunk you are right. This is just the same old stuff. I think people are reacting because AI is doing something, and that something seems to be accelerating the process of software development. So what people are seeing is the same issues we have always had compressed into tiny time frames.

But there is good news, at least I think. AI is also moving processes ideas and safety guards along at a faster rate. The only real downside is right now, at least, the amount of code being created outside of our safeguards has accelerated much much faster. This has happened in the past with software, so I am not too worried.

[e40]

> Attacking every open source maintainer who might use AI for the sin of having used AI because one hates AI is just abusive behavior, not "sane response".

That's not what happened, and I think you know it. The number of LOC introduced in the last 2 versions of rsync is off the charts. And there are bugs. I've been in a situation like the author of that issue. Upgrade a package and things fall apart and it would be very, very expensive to debug it to file the appropriate bug reports... so I roll back to a known good version.

Yes, the language the person used wasn't the greatest.

IMO, this is a litmus test for how you feel about AI. For the people that hate it, it's just a big pile on and "I told you so" ... we don't have enough info about the author to know if they are anti-AI. We know they are against using AI in a BAD WAY.

[MuteXR]

The absolute bulk of the LOC introduced are docs and a unit test system. Let's not just make stuff up now.

[thevinter]

> It's not silly to have issues with something.

I absolutely understand and agree. As I said, I understand the underlying reason.

The silly part is the brigading - issues should be adressed on their own merits. The specific GH issue, and some of the comments therein, make the whole crowd they're affiliated with look bad. (imho)

[consp]

I'd argue there would be two lanes as well: one where the issues are addressed in code, the other being the discussion of why people think this is a bad idea and speak so openly about it. This topic is the second I guess. Looking at the flow there is quite a bit of flamebait by the LLM and non-LLM camps which only muddies the water and doesn't resolve anything. The better discussion (imo) would be to decide if the vide coded fixes are worth it and if not, fork the project somewhere and let the distro's chip in to maintain that.

[sysguest]

idk maybe LLM people should only commit what they actually understand, only in bite-size (maximum few lines in few files) and with at least 1~5 tests that shows the edge cases

drive-by 20-file pull-requests that ultimately end up costing maintainer's burden seems to hit hard here.

[daishi55]

They’re just picking easy targets to bully. There is undoubtedly AI-written code in the Linux kernel now, but are they out there harassing those maintainers? No. rsync GitHub is easier to brigade.

[not_a9]

> There is undoubtedly AI-written code in the Linux kernel now

You can grep commit logs by “Assisted-By” these days and there sure is a whole bunch of LLMs.

[rrrx3]

> My guess is people are tired of the "AI is the greatest thing since [cultural reference]" being forced down their throat and grasp at every straw to combat it, which is a sane response in my opinion and should be taken into account.

Let's engage in some parallelism then

This happens with literally everything in our society. Right now, every single food product seems to be infused with protein. In the past, they've had GMOs removed, MSG removed, been Fiber-infused... the list goes on and on.

We don't see people bullying and threatening grocery store clerks and managers over clear hype-cycle bullshit. Why? Because every rational person knows this is pure nonsense.

This behavior is NOT sane.

As many others have pointed out, this is just a regression that occurred during regular software development. There's nothing remarkable here that makes it AI-specific, other than that the contributions were AI-assisted. Regressions in software happen. You roll back to a stable version and make a bug report. You don't shit your diaper and sling it at the maintainer.

Acting like a giant fucking douche is NOT NORMAL BEHAVIOR.

[zos_kia]

> this is just a regression that occurred during regular software development

From a cursory look, it looks like a security fix in response to a CVE surfaced a coding error which (as far as i bothered to check) has been present in the code since 2007.

This is so banal that it's actually hilarious to see people lose their shit over it. But of course nobody is talking about the actual issue but about the _hypothetical potential for issue_ introduced by potential use of AI. It's so meta i don't even know how to make sense of it.

[BetterThanSober]

>regression happens

Yes, but some should absolutely be caught with a robust test suite, especially if it is not an edge case.

When was the last time there was a breaking regression in SQLite again?

[rrrx3]

What does your strawman argument about a hypothetical regression in SQLite have to do with this? What would a regression in the Windows Calculator have to do with this? What does your whataboutism prove here? Nothing.

A mistake was made. There are well worn paths for fixing the mistake. Acting like a giant fucking petulant pissbaby is not the critical path to getting things fixed and is deeply corrosive to the positive collaborative environment we’ve all spent decades building within shared, community software.

Get the fuck over yourself.

[BetterThanSober]

> positive collaborative environment

Yeah for human, by humans

For some critical software, open-source or not, a regression could literally kills, that's why I put SQLite as an example. A simple miss should NOT pass into stable, if it's an edge case due then yeah learn from it and built a test suite for that if possible

rsync is highly popular tools and a lot of people depends on them, whether you like it or not. At a certain point (I don't know what point, 10k, 20k, 500k users?) maintainers should respect the user expectations over their own ego and convenience

This is a problem for OSS in general, people treats their project like a hobby because it didn't pay enough, or corporates uses it without contributing back

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

> It's not silly to have issues with something.

Note this is not what OP called silly. It's possible to take legitimate issue with something, then act silly about it. People are free to their opinions but not necessarily to (as an extreme example) write their opinions on the wall with their excrement. Regardless of any veracity behind the opinion, some decorum is expected in its expression. (I guess unless one is explicitly doing away with decorum but that's when violence takes its place.)