this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2026

189 points (94.0% liked)

Linux

68,609 readers

5,124 active

173 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
No misinformation
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 7 years ago

moderators

nooter692@lemmy.ml

MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml

cypherpunks@lemmy.ml

cyclohexane@lemmy.ml

Linux security vulnerabilities fixed per kernel version (lemmy.ml)

submitted 1 week ago by MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml to c/linux@lemmy.ml

88 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Something good coming out of AI, it seems.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] pineapple@lemmy.ml 15 points 6 days ago (23 children)

People here can't seam to get past there built in kneejerk reaction to anything AI related.

hideshow 23 child comments

[–] kadu@scribe.disroot.org 17 points 6 days ago (21 children)

get past there built in kneejerk reaction to anything AI related

Maybe because it's not kneejerk. We know how AI works, what it takes to have it running, how it was built, who controls it. For many people, the ends do not justify the means (and that's if we assume fixing CVEs on Linux is somehow worth the very problematic ends AI is leading us towards anyway).

parent

hideshow 21 child comments

[–] pineapple@lemmy.ml 1 point 5 days ago (16 children)

Some people seem to be unable to fathom the fact that AI can be useful in some circumstances, always assuming the worst despite no evidence to suggest it.

parent

hideshow 16 child comments

[–] kadu@scribe.disroot.org 3 points 5 days ago (15 children)

AI can be useful in some circumstances

And the point is that this statement can be true AND we can still think AI should cease to be used. The "useful in some circumstances" benefit does not justify the ethical and environmental cost.

parent

hideshow 15 child comments

[–] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 1 point 5 days ago (14 children)

What would your preferred outcome in this situation be then? The bad guys are going to use AI to find exploits. What should the good guys do?

parent

hideshow 14 child comments

[–] bumblebeer@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago

Dollars to donuts says they don't have a preferred outcome, or at least not anything that amounts to more than wishful thinking.

It's crazy how many people have only reactionary opinions that are largely divorced from reality when it comes to humanity's relationship with AI.

parent

[–] kadu@scribe.disroot.org 1 point 4 days ago (12 children)

What should the good guys do?

Legislate AI away, except for the already existing open models that run on consumer-grade GPUs and are therefore orders of magnitude weaker and can't be used to break down any systems.

Or penalize heavily any company developing a model that is subsequently used to invade a system, stopping this madness of separating the models from the operators of said models.

parent

hideshow 12 child comments

[–] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 1 point 4 days ago

Legislate AI away

Why on earth would the whole world agree to that while the economic incentives (to name just one) to do exactly the opposite are so high

parent

[–] bumblebeer@lemmy.world 1 point 4 days ago (10 children)

Legislate AI away

Yes, because that has worked so well in the past for alcohol, cannabis, homosexuality, or nuclear proliferation.

existing open models that run on consumer-grade GPUs and are therefore orders of magnitude weaker and can't be used to break down any systems.

This class of models is already perfectly capable of finding and exploiting vulnerabilities in software, and is within spitting distance of the frontier.

Or penalize heavily any company developing a model that is subsequently used to invade a system.

Yeah, that case will be on the docket right behind U.S.A. vs Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon surely.

Do you seriously believe any of these are within the realm of possibility, or even believability?

parent

hideshow 10 child comments

[–] pineapple@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 days ago (1 child)

Thank you for doing this for me.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] bumblebeer@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago

No problem. Any time!

parent

[–] kadu@scribe.disroot.org 0 points 4 days ago (7 children)

Yes, because that has worked so well in the past for alcohol, cannabis, homosexuality, or nuclear proliferation.

A list of examples where prohibition didn't work is quite far from an argument that it never works, Plato. Leaded gasoline, CFCs, asbestos, DDT, should I go on?

This class of models is already perfectly capable of finding and exploiting vulnerabilities in software, and is within spitting distance of the frontier.

If you think frontier models are close to Qwen running on your 5090, you're completely devoid of any knowledge on the subject and therefore this discussion becomes meaningless.

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] bumblebeer@lemmy.world 0 points 4 days ago (6 children)

Your examples of prohibition and mine are not the same. Mine were purposefully chosen because they are or were contentious, just like AI is now.

Your examples, on the other hand, outline situations where we were using something harmful that we did not realize at the time was harmful. Once that realization came to light, everyone agreed to stop. If you want to say this is the current situation with AI, then that's coherent. This is my olive branch to you.

As for local models if you want to maintain that DSv4.1, GLM-5.3-f, M-3.1, or ther ilk are not near frontier-level. Then, I guess you are allowed to be wrong.

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] kadu@scribe.disroot.org 0 points 4 days ago (5 children)

As for local models if you want to maintain that DSv4.1, GLM-5.3-f, M-3.1, or ther ilk are not near frontier-level. Then, I guess you are allowed to be wrong.

lol

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] bumblebeer@lemmy.world 1 point 4 days ago (1 child)

Your dialectic skills truly know no bounds.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] kadu@scribe.disroot.org 0 points 4 days ago

Ask your local frontier model for help with your next comment.

parent

[–] pineapple@lemmy.ml 0 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Qwen 3.8 27b is now on par with claud fable 5 acording to this benchmark local llms are only a few months behind frontier models and are capable of many things.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] kadu@scribe.disroot.org 1 point 4 days ago (1 child)

Fable is rank 5, Qwen 3.8 (with nothing claiming it's the reduced 27b one) is rank 29, fuck you are you talking about.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] pineapple@lemmy.ml 1 point 4 days ago

That's fable 5.1 I said fable 5. Also it seems like the link I sent wasn't for the benchmark I meant to send. Try to find the one for code rather than agentic work. Qwen 3.8 27B scores 1590 while Claude fable 5 scores 1624 which is a very slim margin considering fable 5 was one of, if not the best model when it was released.

parent

[–] NovaVeles@lemmy.world 1 point 5 days ago

I have softened very VERY slightly on AI code. If it can identify genuine issues than that is fine. It is when folks just trust it blindly and just send 50 commits without understanding a thing or even remotely testing it, that is just crazy. But then on the flip side, yeah all the other issues probably aren't worth it.

It is complicated at times but then things like this always are. The most successful evil always has some claim to virtue.

Alas, occasionally you have to walk with the devil to achieve some good. One just has to weigh up if it is worth it.

I once asked Stallman about how he used to build and run GNU tools before having the Linux kernel. He was using a proprietary Minix system as a means to get work done until there was a better alternative. I mean running a proprietary system is one thing, burning through the amazon with 100 quintillion tokens is very different.

parent

[–] bumblebeer@lemmy.world -1 points 5 days ago (2 children)

the very problematic ends AI is leading us towards anyway.

Please Mr. Time Traveller. Tell us about the future.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] kadu@scribe.disroot.org 2 points 4 days ago (1 child)

A plane's wings are burning and it's heading towards a mountain, opposite way to the nearest airport. Need a time machine to figure out what's about to happen?

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] bumblebeer@lemmy.world 1 point 4 days ago

I asked you to provide specifics about the future that AI is leading us towards, not a summary of the early 21st century. However, I understand how the question could have been confusing to one such as yourself who swims in the steam of prescience.

Or, if we must stick to metaphor, where is AI in this airplane?

parent

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 4 points 6 days ago

there built in kneejerk

WHERE built in the kneejerk?

parent