This claim doesn't make much sense. Manual analysis is off topic, nothing changed about this by the introduction of LLMs.

Why would LLMs somehow act worse when used by defenders? Are you assuming that the only attackers are nation states with virtually unlimited budget? Isn't rising the budget for defenders what the news is about?

Touch grass, a self proclaimed "expert" isn't worth much.
You are correct about the fact that some of those vulnerabilities could have and should have been found. The fact that they weren't, only confirms that using AI actually helps defenders as well.
But I fail to see, how using AI to help defenders would be "NOT a good thing". Are you suggesting to put the cat back to the bag and prohibit the use of AI to poke software? Attackers aren't known for following laws, this would only inhibit the defence. Are you suggesting we should get more people to read the code? There is nothing stopping this now, yet some of the recent bugs are a decade old.

Hoover-like capabilities of Linux Mint are news to me.
But you absolutely miss the point of what makes Linux Mint popular. It's for people who use computer to do (other) things.
I am absolutely fine with not having the new and shiny of everything.
I really like it that every apt package just works and installs fine and there aren't clashes between a package needing the newest library and another not working with that newest library etc.
I really like it that Linux Mint hasn't changed the location of Start button for lolz.

I used to run Gentoo back in the day and even supported a Gentoo install. Waiting for compiling packages gets old really fast. The better performance of fine-tuning? I wouldn't be able to measure it. Also the global waste of everyone recompiling every mundane package. It's good that in 2024 they finally started providing precompiled packages.

I also use headless Debian on servers, but I still don't trust Gnome to not revamp their UI again.
I still don't like Gnome and I wouldn't trust them to not make a next huge UI change.

So many words in this thread and you still haven't stated any actual reasons for why would you think Mint isn't good. "Mine is better" isn't really informative.

So who exactly would be interested in establishing such a company with all the cost, risk and no benefits?

I have been using Linux Mint on almost all the Linux boxes I have except for Debian on headless servers. Reasons:
1) Mint doesn't change things for no reason, especially UI (unlike Ubuntu used to do)
2) it is compatible with Debian and Ubuntu
3) all the defaults make sense
4) snaps are off by default

This reflects my experience as well. It really lowers the bar of entry for much of technical work. It suits well when the cost of trying it out is nothing.
It can help learning a lot if it does not replace thinking. It can be an extremely kind and patient tutor, useful even if it is sometimes wrong.

Current AI prices are all deceiving, since AI hasn't entered the shareholder value maximising phase, quite the opposite. It won't be exactly cheap when the enshittification starts. It will still be cheaper than real developers.

Ad hominem.

I don't think AI predictions on horse racing is something an average slashdot reader is interested in. This is as yellow and useless as "tech news" can get.

For better security, to make sure no certificate can ever be used maliciously, one could go one step further and invalidate the certificate right away.

Maybe this will be one of the options which will accidentally turn on every other update.

Read in Morgan Freeman voice: "It did not improve the drug safety..."

And all their app has is the very same AI chatbot.

Check your math. This is 25% payrise.