Probably better to edit out genetic defects after birth than trying to eliminate them completely from the genome. Sometimes we have unfavorable traits that played a role in our survival in the past. Getting rid of them entirely may have undesirable future consequences.

So the solution to modern plutocratic corporate feudalists is . . . capitalism!

Indeed. KISS is the basis of all solid engineering and complexity is the death of it. I do not think the people at the wheel are aware of that. Probably a lack of experience and insight, which would be bad on a whole other level.

As long as it is clearly understood that this is an experiment, that is fine. Fully committing only to find out that Rust does not cut it would be a bad mistake. There are several serious problems with Rust, one being the lack of spec, another being that it is hard to learn (hence fewer maintainers). And "used wisely" requires that wisdom to be present and in use.

I will be watching this and it will be interesting to see how it will turn out. Just keep "There is no silver bullet" in mind.

Good point. Rust also hat the problem that it is really hard to learn and requires a lot of skill and experience to do so. Which makes the risk of Rust prematurely dying a lot more real.

On the other hand, while I am not convinced that Rust really makes code more secure (the incompetent will just make harder to find mistakes, but attackers can now use AI to help with that), that it is hard to learn may have that effect. The most serious problem we have in the software space is tons of incompetent and semi-competent "coders".

Still, "standardizing" on a supposedly "secure coding" language that hilariously does not even have a full specification is probably not a good idea.

My take is all that "move to Rust" is half-assign things and misses the point. That never goes well.

What, they still do not have a published full language spec? Why is anybody using this thing outside of experiments? It seems incompetence and lack of professionalism are now a Linux mainstream thing. Sad to see.

Indeed. The first rule of software rewrites is simply: "Do not do it". Apparently some people are lacking in education on CS/IT history. Well, they may make it if the problem is small enough (not sure APT is), but they will rediscover things that are well known along the way. Let's hope they are not stupid enough to do away with the old APT before the new one works well (in 10 years or so).

Which now bites them in the ass. This is a classical case of greedy dumb assholes trying to do things "cheaper than possible".

Ah, no. LLMs cannot do fact-checking. They hallucinate even with full access to verified facts.

You cannot "debug" an LLM. Not possible. That is one of the reasons why LLM use requires a high level of on-target expertise and a lot of care.

That is the no-clue cave-man answer. All research shows that increased penalties have no positive effect, but make the problem worse.

The thing is that LLMs cannot fact check. Apparently the users of LLMs are, in this case, too lazy or to dumb (or both) to do it themselves.

There is indications that for many things, LLMs actually decrease efficiency and using them is a costly mistake. This ("better search") is supposedly one of the few areas where they save time. But fact-checking LLM results actually requires more skill and competence than generating the results manually and it MUST be done for results of reasonable quality. Apparently, that little problem is still not common knowledge.

The funny thing is that all of that would be very easy to verify. But LLMs are completely unable to verify. Such a great tool...

At the rates these fuckers charge, this is completely unacceptable and should be regarded as fraud.