The problem with that is, the patch will not take into account other parts of the system, coding standards, readability, and it will end up making the codebase harder to maintain. Do this at scale, and you will end up with a codebase which is unmaintainable.

That is assuming the patch really does fix the problem at all in the end. LLM's can't imagine exploit types which were not in their training data, so there are no guarantees at all this will be the case.

Try switching one of those module packages out for an alternative and see how well your Fedora system runs. Just because it's several packages doesn't mean it's modular. All that means is it's spread over several packages.

What goes for "AI" today is horrible for asking questions. It's not what it's good at. Nobody should be using it for that, and teaching kids to use it that way should fall under child abuse.

As a technical term, sure. But it's misleading to use it in everyday conversation, as it doesn't function like context does for us. What it does is bias the text generation, not inform it, since there is nothing that can GET informed.

That your workplace is falling apart is interesting, but hardly relevant to how an LLM works. No matter what "amazing things" can be done with generators, they can never be reliable at generating text summarizing informal information. That's inherent to how they function. There is no understanding, and no context such as humans use it.

Except you, it appears, who will wildly swing off topic and start accusing me of things which are outside of the context of the discussion. That's what research shows happens when people rely on slop generators. Critical thinking and ability to stay on topic erodes.

You answer yourself. A disclaimer which doesn't work to prevent mistakes by, for example, being unmissable is instead deception. Fine print works in the broken US system, but in the rest of the world what matters is intent.

It's not a context. Context has a specific meaning in real world use, and as you explain, the model knows language, not fact, therefore there can be no context. And even when you point some text at the generator, it still generates based on statistics and nothing else what so ever.

What it will do is generate language based on the text in the manual. Not answer questions. Generate statistically likely reponses isn't answering questions.

These systems do not work well. At all. They're statistics based generators, and nothing can change that. And there exists no "logic that figures out" anything in them. What you're writing about is when the generated text happens to coincide with something proper. That's luck, not logic.

That's some of the heaviest denial I've seen around here. You really imagine US health insurance isn't death panels for profit. I thought I'd seen the bottom of denial, but there's apparently some ways to go.

I'm so sorry for you.

That's just about never been my experience, outside of very formal information which have an immense amount of coverage on the Internet. Things like common questions on stackoverflow and the like. Anything even slightly less formal, or uncommon, and it's all made up garbage. Especially when it comes to something which is in news, then it's horrific how bad the generation is.

What "other components" are that?

Tell me you only speak one language without saying you only speak one language. Idioms translate very badly, and misunderstanding an idiom is not "taking things too literally". You would have no clue if she had used a German idiom as a reaction to something you said, and would have misunderstood that.

That you don't even comprehend such basic differences between language and culture shows that your opinions on what idiosyncrasies other cultures have are not only completely irrelevant, but also based on total ignorance. Total. You're literally showing that you have no clue at all what happens when cultures intersect and idioms fail to translate.

It's not "overtly political" to lead a death board which decides who lives and who dies?

Is that really what you imagine?

I knew the US view on politics was warped, but dang son...

An LLM is incapable of actually summarizing. What it does is generate based on statistics, which is literally making stuff up. Occasionally, the made up stuff somewhat conforms to what was in the "summarised" material.

Deceptive design can't be disclaimed away in most EU courts. On the contrary, a disclaimer on a deceptive design is an admission that the design is deliberately deceptive.

In this case, the hallucination is front and center, and the design does not draw attention to links or real quotes at all, even making it hard to realize they're there for someone who is not what used to be termed a power user.

Google has the choice to have a button called "probably incorrect summary" opening the "AI overview", or placing the "AI overview" prominently expecting the user to blindly trust it and be done. Or any other way.

No-one is forcing them which way to implement this. But their choice makes a huge difference in how authoritative a user will find the summary. And no, a disclaimer is not enough. A disclaimer is irrelevant as long as the summary is placed in a spot of prominence and the page design deliberately leads away from using the links to verify what the summary has hallucinated.

This is all on Google. They want people to trust and use the overview, and stop clicking links. The result from that is their responsibility.

I run uBlock Origin on Brave, and it works fine.

Rust has added a process which makes the language handle the bit humans are really bad at handling. The bit where even the most excellent programmer makes easy to miss mistakes just by having a bad day. This process can't be implemented in C.

It's sad what the peanut gallery has become that cause claims like this to be made.

And yes. All input is evil. Exactly all. No exceptions.