Alterslash

the unofficial Slashdot digest
 

Contents

  1. Amazon Deforestation Fell To Lowest Level Since 1988 - And Silva Wins Reelection
  2. Microsoft Announces Open Source Tool Evaluating Your Software’s Optimization For AI Coding Agents
  3. 25% of Incoming Pull Requests May Be AI Slop, Finds Study From Linux Foundation Research
  4. Systemd Merges Support for Rust Programs
  5. AI Use Convinces California Math Professor There’s ‘No Point’ Grading Homework
  6. A Newly Proposed Linux Filesystem Can Fix Corrupted Data
  7. AI Delivers ‘Zero Financial Payoff’ To Most Companies, Economist Says
  8. Google Says Gmail and Photos Data Shared with AI Search Could Be Used for Targeted Ads
  9. Free Software Foundation Hosts Free ‘Encryptfest’ Event on Sunday
  10. As eMudhra Exits Cert Business, Users Face New PKI Trust Decisions
  11. Getty Images Files For US Bankruptcy, Advances Restructuring Plan
  12. Old Blood Cells Have Been Transformed Into Brain Stem Cells That Get Younger
  13. CIOs Admit They Are Being Forced To Upgrade Enterprise IT
  14. America’s Defense Department Is Building an ‘Elite New Tech Sabotage Agency’
  15. Ask Slashdot: Can AI Bots Really Write Most of Your Code?

Alterslash picks up to the best 5 comments from each of the day’s Slashdot stories, and presents them on a single page for easy reading.

Amazon Deforestation Fell To Lowest Level Since 1988 - And Silva Wins Reelection

Posted by EditorDavid • • View on SlashDot • Skip
Brazil’s 80-year-old president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva was re-elected Sunday, reports the Guardian, “defeating his far-right opponent, Flávio Bolsonaro, to claim a historic fourth term in power.”

And the results could impact the climate, suggests the Associated Press, since under da Silva the annual deforestation rate in the Amazon fell to its lowest level since records began in 1988:
Official satellite data showed the rainforest lost 3,335 square kilometers (1,300 square miles) from Aug. 2025 through July 2026, the period used to calculate the annual rate…

During Jair Bolsonaro’s presidency, from 2019 to 2022, Amazon deforestation surged by about 60%, with more than 45,000 square kilometers (17,400 square miles) cleared, according to official data. Under Lula, deforestation has fallen 71% since 2023, the government said. One of Lula’s first moves after taking office in January 2023 for a third, non-consecutive term was to revive the Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Deforestation in the Legal Amazon, known by its Portuguese acronym, PPCDAm. Launched in 2004 during his first administration, the plan had been shelved under Bolsonaro....

The plan has four pillars: strengthening monitoring and enforcement; promoting a sustainable economy; managing protected areas and determining how undesignated public forests should be used; and using regulations and financial incentives to curb deforestation. Measures included restoring sanctions for illegal forest clearing detected by satellites, a practice seen as the most effective tool to curb deforestation that was halted under Bolsonaro. The government also proposed barring properties with illegal deforestation from receiving bank loans and allocated more funding to priority Amazon municipalities that demonstrated reductions in forest loss. It also funded efforts to fight environmental crime and develop subsidized credit for sustainable businesses in the Amazon…

Deforestation and other land-use changes are Brazil’s largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions, which drive global warming. The stakes are especially high in the Amazon, which stores vast amounts of carbon dioxide and generates atmospheric moisture that helps regulate weather far beyond South America… Degradation from wildfires, logging and drought affects about 40% of the Amazon and has outpaced clear-cutting in recent years. A strong El Niño, a periodic warming of the equatorial Pacific, could intensify those threats in 2026 and 2027 by bringing hotter, drier conditions that fuel wildfires.
The article notes that Lula’s reelection campaign promised zero net deforestation by 2030, plus restoration to offset all forest loss, legal or illegal.

Democracy and sovereignty wins!

By That’s What She Said • • Score: 3 • Thread

Yeah, Mr. Donnie Duck Dump, you’re not calling my country a âoebackyardâ!

naming!

By nicolaiplum • • Score: 5, Informative • Thread

His surname is da Silva so at least get that right. He is always known as Lula, a life-long nickname which is also part of his legal name (since 1982).

Lula won despite US interference

By maladroit • • Score: 3 • Thread

US interference in the Brazilian election:

“Inside the Trump-administration campaign to return Brazil’s Bolsonaro clan to power”
https://www.reuters.com/world/…

“Battle over Meta’s alleged Bolsonaro bias intensifies days before Brazil presidential runoff”
https://www.theguardian.com/wo…

Microsoft Announces Open Source Tool Evaluating Your Software’s Optimization For AI Coding Agents

Posted by EditorDavid • • View on SlashDot • Skip
The problem? Understanding how AI coding agents interact with the software you build. “Whether you’re maintaining an SDK, building a command-line interface, or publishing an MCP server or skills… you need to understand whether agents can discover and use what you ship, and what your team can change.”

Results can vary, and configurations keep changing, with behaviors influenced by everything from custom instructions and MCP servers to skills and plugins. So after a year of development Microsoft has created Scope, “an open-source platform built on Kubernetes for turning those interactions into evidence product teams can act on.”

Details are available on… the Microsoft open source blog:
Available under the MIT License, Scope supports a continuous Developer Agent Experience (DevAx) learning loop grounded in repeatable experiments.

The Azure Cosmos DB team’s experience shows what that loop can deliver… “The evaluations led to 20 Agent Kit issues and 27 documentation issues resolved,” [says Jay Gordon, Senior Program Manager, Azure Cosmos DB]… These results connect evaluation to decisions a product team can make: which documentation needs clarification, where tooling needs a fix, and whether an update changes agent behavior.... [The gains] demonstrate how targeted changes, informed by observed behavior, can improve the way agents use a product.

For more on the shift from building for human developers to supporting agents, watch Your Product Was Built for Humans. Is It Ready for Agents? or join us at AI DevCon NYC conference in November.
Scope surfaces everything from incorrect assumptions in documentation (or recurring missed instructions) to whether agents select the intended SDK, initialize it correctly, and use its APIs, leading to clearer descriptions for command-line tool and more actionable errors.

Microsoft’s open source blog also explains why AI agent evaluation needs an open-source foundation:
The challenges behind agent experience aren’t unique to one product or organization. SDK maintainers, tool authors, researchers, and agent developers are all asking how agents behave and what helps them succeed. No single team can represent every language, workflow, or integration. An open project can bring more scenarios, more failure cases, and more viewpoints into the evaluation process… Opening Scope’s execution and evaluation code gives contributors a way to question the methods, investigate unexpected results, and improve the evaluation itself. A shared foundation also reduces duplicated infrastructure. Agent integrations, reusable criteria, and trace-analysis improvements can help other teams study their own products without rebuilding the same machinery. The goal isn’t one universal benchmark or definition of success. It’s a common starting point that teams can adapt to their needs.

The MIT License lets teams use and extend Scope, while self-managed deployments let them evaluate private workloads without publishing their code or run data.... Scope streams activity as the agent works and retains interactions and workspace snapshots for later review. Your team can follow tool calls, inspect generated files, and connect a failed requirement to the steps that preceded it. Those traces provide observable evidence of what the agent did, helping turn a failure into a concrete documentation, SDK, or tooling improvement.

25% of Incoming Pull Requests May Be AI Slop, Finds Study From Linux Foundation Research

Posted by EditorDavid • • View on SlashDot • Skip
“59% of maintainers report growing contribution volume since the rise of GenAI,” according to a new study published by Linux Foundation Research. But 25% of their incoming pull requests “are estimated to be low-quality, also known as ‘AI slop’.” And on large projects, 69% see growing contributions — and estimate that 31% are low-quality/AI slop.

So what do these results show us? “Generative AI is fundamentally changing how people participate in open source,” says the head of Open Source Ecosystem Development at Huawei’s R&D subsidiary Futurewei, which helped support the study. Specifically GenAI is “lowering barriers to contribution” but also “creating new challenges” for maintainers and communities. Their recommendation? “Build the governance, transparency and trust mechanisms that allow AI-assisted contributions to strengthen, but not overwhelm, the open source ecosystem.”

“Open source projects need to design for a growing AI-generated contributor base, not simply react to it,” said Hilary Carter, SVP of Research at the Linux Foundation. “That means setting clear expectations for GenAI, putting responsibility for testing and disclosure on contributors and giving maintainers better tools to manage incoming pull requests. If we get those fundamentals right, AI can expand participation without overburdening and increasing costs for maintainers.”

More from the blog It’s FOSS:
LF Research is the Linux Foundation’s research arm. It was set up in 2021 and publishes studies on how open source is built and used, drawing on surveys and project data. Its latest report, Navigating Open Source Software Development in the Generative AI Era, surveyed 234 contributors and maintainers on how generative AI is affecting the way open source gets made…

64% say reviews now take longer. Burnout is their top concern at 63%, narrowly ahead of contribution quality at 60%.

You will also find that policies have not caught up to the AI-assisted coding and vulnerability reporting trend. Of the 119 respondents who answered the question, 35% said their project has a formal policy permitting AI use. Another 32% have none and no plans for one, 23% plan to write one, and 10% ban AI contributions outright....

Most maintainers (71%) say AI makes it easier for newcomers to start contributing.
Other interesting findings:

OpenSSF and LF AI & Data also helped support the study.


When you can’t be bothered to to write something..

By BitterEpic • • Score: 3 • Thread
When you can’t be bothered to to write something…why should anyone be bothered to read it? We have some idiots doing that right now with AI here on Slashdot.

Licensing barrier

By LainTouko • • Score: 3 • Thread
“If this contains the output of any LLM, provide a full list of the licenses of everything in its training material so we can check compatibility with our license.”

Systemd Merges Support for Rust Programs

Posted by EditorDavid • • View on SlashDot • Skip
“As of today in systemd Git it’s now possible for the systemd programs to be written in the Rust programming language as an alternative to C,” reports Phoronix:
Core systemd code like the systemd library doesn’t yet support Rust code, but for the various systemd programs / leaf components there is now support for using Rust… The new systemd-keyring-setup utility in Rust is used for provisioning keyrings and enrolling X.509 certificates into the kernel’s dm-verity / fs-verity / BPF keyrings during the boot process while dealing them afterward. This systemd-keyring-setup code hasn’t been merged yet but is expected soon now that the Rust infrastructure has landed. Originally it was all part of a single big commit before being split-up for the Rust enablement, systemd-keyring-setup, and other preparations for this new component.

Systemd developers aren’t planning on porting existing C code to Rust, all the Rust code is built with Meson [no Cargo usage], and C linkage only is mandated.

Systemd Rust components come out slightly larger than C with a test program being 32KB compared to 20KB for its C twin. For now at least the systemd Rust support is optional and toggled by the -Drust= Meson option with it being auto by default.

Re:This will certainly be great discussion

By fuzzyfuzzyfungus • • Score: 4, Insightful • Thread
I’m not really qualified to deliver a good holy war; but it does seem like there may be something to the criticism that monolithic integration has gone a bit far if supporting one utility being written in a different language is a special feature rather than a matter of the rest of the system not knowing or caring what is on the opposite side of an interface so long as it can act as expected.

Re:This will certainly be great discussion

By fluffernutter • • Score: 4, Insightful • Thread
Then why are all the separate little config files monolithic? What cron did with one file you now need many multilinr files for? And what is the format of those config files anyway? It seems like INI which is a Windows thing. The only software that uses that on Linux was made by people who don’t really understand Linux.

AI Use Convinces California Math Professor There’s ‘No Point’ Grading Homework

Posted by EditorDavid • • View on SlashDot • Skip
From the student newspaper at the University of California, Berkeley:
Richard Borcherds, a UC Berkeley professor and Fields medalist, no longer grades his students’ homework. After seeing how many of his students used AI to consistently receive top scores, he felt there was “no point” in paying readers to grade for correctness in homework, as AI use is now unavoidable.

Borcherds revealed this in a sit-down interview Tuesday, following OpenAI’s announcement that AI agents apparently solved one of mathematics’ most difficult unsolved problems, the Navier-Stokes existence and smoothness problem. “If AI continues to improve at present rate, then, in a few years, there’ll be nothing human mathematicians can do that AI can’t do better,” Borcherds said.

Borcherds said he currently grades on completion if a student hands in their homework. He admitted that it is “not a very good system,” but at the moment, he has no alternative… Campus has tried several AI detection tools, including Turnitin and Rumi, but have determined that these tools aren’t adequate enough to be standardized on campus.
The article points out that at the university, each class’s AI policy “is up to the discretion of faculty.”

Good

By reanjr • • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

Grading homework is kind of silly anyway. It should be for practice. Regular testing every week or so is the way to go.

“That’s not intelligence!”

By timeOday • • Score: 5, Interesting • Thread
“in a few years, there’ll be nothing human mathematicians can do that AI can’t do better,” Borcherds said. " Oh, that’s sad. If history serves as a guide, it means we’ll have to re-define math as “not intellience (TM)" and rationalize that AI is just brute-forcing it since DNN’s are incapable of making novel generalizations (even though they do exactly that, constantly).

Let me fix this for you

By BitterEpic • • Score: 5, Interesting • Thread

Grading homework is kind of silly anyway. It should be for practice. Regular testing every week or so is the way to go while wearing your Meta glasses.

AI is a type of heroin that is very hard to stop once you start. Students once intoxicated will have a hard time stopping for “weekly tests.” They always eventually become unable to even reference primary sources, where the only truth is AI.

Do you read Sutter Cane?

Re:Good

By Anonymous Coward • • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

What do you think homework is? It *is* testing the student’s understanding of the concepts and exposing gaps in that understanding.

Relying only on weekly tests is too late, especially when there are 20+ students dumber than a bag of hammers, to explain concepts several lectures ago.

Re:Good

By tlhIngan • • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

When I was in university, homework was at most 10% of your grade. The midterm exam was often worth 45%, and the final the other 45%. Often with the stipulation that you must pass the final to pass the course.

I had classes where homework was assigned but not graded. It was obvious who did the homework and who didn’t - you just didn’t do very well on the final or midterm if you didn’t do the optional homework.

Everyone’s an adult. You don’t do the assigned homework at your own risk, even if it isn’t graded. Midterms and final exam correspond to the biggest influence on your grade.

Heck, sometimes the midterm mark can be dropped as well - I’ve had plenty of professors simply say because we scored badly on the midterms, they’ll use the final exam mark if we do better. So if you scored a 30% on the midterm but then get an 80% on the exam, you get an 80% on the class.

Stop the coddling and just treat everyone as an adult. Assign homework, but don’t mark it. You can ask if people had a problem they got stuck on so they could work it out as part of the lecture, but not part of the grade. The final grade you get depends solely on the midterm and/or the final exam.

(I got a D on a class where I didn’t do the homework. The second semester the followup course I did the homework and got an A-)

A Newly Proposed Linux Filesystem Can Fix Corrupted Data

Posted by EditorDavid • • View on SlashDot • Skip
BeamFS creator Aurelien Desbrieres is not calling for a merge, but is requesting feedback on an 18-patch proposal that takes the place of FTRFS, an earlier filesystem he proposed in April.

The Linux/Open Source blog It’s FOSS reports:
Filesystems that can repair damage, like Btrfs and ZFS, usually do it by falling back on a spare copy of the data. BeamFS skips that and stores Reed-Solomon error-correcting codes inside every block. Every read gets checked against those codes, and small amounts of damage are corrected before the data reaches the application. If the filesystem can tell the damage is beyond repair, the read fails with an error instead of returning the wrong bytes…

In his technical report, ext4 and ext3 returned wrong data without any error, while Btrfs refused to read the file. BeamFS returned the correct file every time except once, when a flip hit a pointer to the file’s data and it refused the read.
“Aurelien says he used Anthropic’s Claude to write the code, the tool that checks the patches, and the cover letter…”

The physics is measured, not supposed.

By NobleNobbler • • Score: 4, Informative • Thread

Oh FFS. I hope the linux mailing list doesn’t start accepting these claude jargon filled technical discourses.

“atmospheric neutrons alone upset avionics at altitude (Normand [9]); and the medium is not exempt”

??????

Vibe coded huh?

By karmawarrior • • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

A vibe coded *file system*. Really.

Gonna stay away from this one.

Re:The physics is measured, not supposed.

By MachineShedFred • • Score: 5, Interesting • Thread

Just because you don’t understand, doesn’t make it not true.

Cosmic radiation indeed causes higher storage failure rates in avionics systems. However, because we can do things like redundant storage, the problem usually isn’t in the file system, but the SSD firmware.

It’s incredibly common to replace an LRU (Line Replaceable Unit), take the SSD out of the replaced LRU and reflash the firmware on it, and reinstall and test to find out that the device works perfectly again because it was a bit-flip in the SSD controller firmware.

Source: I am an avionics engineer.

Why ?

By Bomazi • • Score: 5, Interesting • Thread
Linux already has dm-integrity, a layer that emulates a block device with per-sector tags that store integrity information. If you insert it between a block device and any filesystem, you get the same result, including a read error if the data cannot be corrected.

I don’t see an explanation of why you would need a whole new filesystem.

More info needed

By backslashdot • • Score: 3 • Thread

I refuse to adopt any Linux filesystem without proof of life evidence from the founder’s wife.

AI Delivers ‘Zero Financial Payoff’ To Most Companies, Economist Says

Posted by EditorDavid • • View on SlashDot • Skip
“Despite massive investments and widespread hype around AI , the technology has delivered zero financial payoff to corporate America outside of tech,” writes the chief economist at U.S. asset management firm Apollo Global.

He adds that “there are still no signs of AI boosting productivity growth… [M]ainstream corporate America is pulling back and starting to view token spending not as a source of growth but as a cost center that weighs on margins.”
VC-backed companies are spending more and more on tokens, but mainstream corporate America does not need the latest model and is unwilling to pay for it. As long as agentic AI and token spending are confined to a small part of the economy, the macroeconomic effects of AI will be very limited…

The question looking ahead is whether, even as models become commoditized, mainstream corporate America can turn increasingly cheap intelligence into higher revenue growth and higher profit margins. That may be harder than it sounds. AI may be a great calculator, but in business, intelligence is mostly judgment. Judgment depends on context, and the answer varies with which human or which model you ask. Perhaps most importantly, AI does not understand accountability, trust, culture, unwritten rules, ethical trade-offs or fairness, all of which shape reputational risk and ultimately drive revenue growth and profit margins.

The bottom line is that the AI story will be decided in the S&P 493, not the Mag 7, and so far, there is no evidence that revenue growth or margins are improving outside the tech sector.
More details from TechCrunch:
Apollo’s Torsten Slok focuses on what he calls the S&P 493 — the S&P 500, minus Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta, Microsoft, Nvidia and Tesla — finding that profit margins and revenue per worker appear to be flat, with no evidence that AI is improving productivity…

Recent studies have also found that AI has yet to deliver significant productivity gains.

In The Words Of The Great Lebowski

By SlashbotAgent • • Score: 4, Funny • Thread

That’s just, like, your opinion, man.

I believe that much or most of the AI usage is wasted money and energy. But, this guy’s take is too extreme for reality. The number of customer service(call center) jobs that have been replaced by AI chat and AI voice agents has surely impacted bottom lines. The marketing work, writing copy and creating images, is a whole other level from where it was when being done manually. The number of emails created, summarized and responded to by Copilot alone has certainly increased productivity by at least 0.5%. Dishwasher sales are surely up since they added AI. And don’t even ask about the smart fridges.

This guy is a clueless cuck spouting his opinion. There are plenty of the S&P 493 that are making money with AI.

That said, I’m eager for this bubble to burst.

Re:Gemini can you respond for me?

By know-nothing cunt • • Score: 5, Funny • Thread

I fed that into ChatGPT and it just said “tl;dr.”

In other words …

By fahrbot-bot • • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

in business, intelligence is mostly judgment. Judgment depends on context, and the answer varies with which human or which model you ask.

Almost like having different kinds of people, with different backgrounds and experiences is helpful. Too bad that’s unpopular at the moment. /s

We are permanently losing part of ourselves

By BitterEpic • • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

AI is used to devalue the things people find important. Success did not mean it improves the lives of normal people… it means taking advantage of them.

When I receive a fake image from someone using AI, I deserve to be pissed. When I receive an AI generated reply, I deserve to be pissed. The technology is pushed first and foremost to destroy human interaction.

AI is incensing part of the population where is there is not pushback on stolen IP for those not using it. We will choose voting for America’s destruction when there are no sufficiently anti AI candidates. And then you get to start experiencing what we experience.

Re:Excellent news

By timeOday • • Score: 5, Interesting • Thread

Yeah academic studies and surveys have a long and consistent record of failing to find any befit from IT in general:

- AI-generated answer (with direct quotes and cites)

1. Ng, Pan & Wilson (1998) Ã" Most businesses saw no revenue benefit ÃoeA majority (56%) indicated that their presence on the World Wide Web did not produce any noticeable change in their turnoverà The study also found that approximately 31% reported increased turnover, while 13% could not identify an effect. Citation: Ng, H.-I., Pan, Y. J., & Wilson, T. D. (1998). Business Use of the World Wide Web: A Report on Further Investigations. International Journal of Information Management, 18(5), 291Ã"314, p. 310. Information Research Full paper (PDF)

2. Hitt & Brynjolfsson (1996) Ã" IT investments did not necessarily increase profitability ÃoeHowever, we do not find evidence that these benefits have resulted in supranormal business profitability.Ã The researchers examined IT investments at 370 large firms. They found productivity gains and benefits to consumers, but no evidence of above-normal profits attributable to IT investments. Citation: Hitt, L. M., & Brynjolfsson, E. (1996). Productivity, Business Profitability, and Consumer Surplus: Three Different Measures of Information Technology Value. MIS Quarterly, 20(2), 121Ã"142. Iecon Paper and abstract

3. Subramani & Walden (2001) Ã" Internet initiatives increased stock market valuations ÃoeThe results suggest that e-commerce initiatives do indeed lead to significant positive CARs for firms’ shareholders.Ã Studying 251 e-commerce announcements from late 1998, the researchers found positive abnormal stock returns ranging from 4.9% to 23.4% across different subsamples. However, these were stock market gains reflecting expectations of future profitability, not demonstrated increases in operating profits. Citation: Subramani, M., & Walden, E. (2001). The Impact of E-Commerce Announcements on the Market Value of Firms. Information Systems Research, 12(2), 135Ã"154. PubsOnLine Full paper (PDF)

Bottom line The findings illustrate three different aspects of the late-1990s Internet economy:

- 1996: IT investments improved productivity without demonstrably generating above-normal corporate profits.
- 1998: Most surveyed businesses reported no measurable increase in revenue from their websites.
  - 1998 data, published 2001: Investors nevertheless rewarded companies announcing Internet initiatives with substantial increases in stock market valuation.

The important limitation: None of these studies established whether the average company earned a positive or negative net return on adopting the Internet. The 1998 survey comes closest to measuring actual business results specifically attributable to Internet adoption.

- end of AI
Studies in the social sciences invariably prove what is popular. Watch, you’ll see, and they consistently lean luddite. They resent new capabilities changing the world more than their ‘insights’ ever do. New capabilities are what change the world, but why should technologists have all the power to determine the future? (As if innovation, innovation, and history worked that way at all - particularly since inventors (individuals or nations) usually have a slim window of exclusivity.

Google Says Gmail and Photos Data Shared with AI Search Could Be Used for Targeted Ads

Posted by EditorDavid • • View on SlashDot • Skip
The blog Android Authority offers this TLDR:
Google updated its privacy policy to clarify that it could use information shared through Personal Intelligence to personalize ads. Gmail, Drive, and Photos content isn’t used for targeted ads by default, but connecting them to eligible Google services could change that.
Digital Trends explains:
Google has long promised that your Gmail, Drive, and Google Photos content never helps it personalize ads. However, since October 16, 2026, its privacy policy adds a catch. The promise lapses if you let other ad-showing Google services use that content. That means using Personal Intelligence, an opt-in tool that lets Google’s AI search read your connected apps, does exactly that (via Google).

If you ask Google’s AI Mode where to eat near your hotel, and it can identify your hotel from the booking confirmation in Gmail, find the location in Maps, and then suggest a few places you might like. That’s the helpful half. The twist, however, is that AI Mode can also show sponsored results. Google mentions that the personalized ads follow what the question and answer are about. So, while your inbox never goes to an advertiser, it can quietly shape the answer, which, in turn, shapes the ads.

Google’s defense is elaborate. First, it says connecting the apps is optional. Second, advertisers can’t see the information or content Google accesses in your Workspace apps (including your inbox and photos). Finally, sensitive topics like health are off-limits.
Ars Technica shares the response they got from a Google spokesperson: that Google isn’t scanning your entire inbox to feed their advertising profiles, but if you choose to pipe your personal data into an AI search tool — then the ads Google shows you could be based on that information.
If you want to ensure ads never use your personal data in this way, you’ll need to make sure Personal Intelligence is turned off. The easiest way is to access the Gemini settings for Personal Intelligence and disable the connected apps. These settings are also a few levels deep in your main Google account settings under Data & privacy > Personalization settings > Manage Personalized Recommendations in Search Services > Connected Content Apps. From there, you can disable connections to Workspace and Google Photos.

oh, goody

By usedtobestine • • Score: 5, Funny • Thread

I should epxect to see ads for strippers, intimate Asian massage, and Atlanta escorts.
I can’t wait. /sarc

Re:oh, goody

By awwshit • • Score: 5, Funny • Thread

The ad networks already seem to think that I’m a 21 year old Hispanic female from Alaska that likes Celebrities and Cats. I would hate to disappoint them.

I will be happy when

By FudRucker • • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread
I can get a smartphone that is not under the control of Apple or Google, they both recently ruined their maps apps with advertisements embedded getting in the way of what you are trying to search, way to go Apple & google you both shit on the only useful app you made

Re:I will be happy when

By eneville • • Score: 5, Interesting • Thread

I self host most of my things, so the smart phone is just a ssh client to mutt running remotely. Yes, that means I can’t see pictures in mail, but that also means I don’t have to see spam pictures either. Since I self host, I don’t use gmail on the phone and perhaps only use maps. There’s not a lot of overlap and the phone doesn’t feel like a giant advert mill.

Time to move off gmail

By GeekWithAKnife • • Score: 4, Interesting • Thread
Thank you for further enshitification.

This makes decisions easier…large US “free” email providers are simply monitising your data. Paying for a service is frown upon but luckily you can make your own free email server on your own free cloud instance.

Don’t know how? Ask your favourite AI (failing that Gemini will tell you) - sure it’s not as reliable or convenient as Gmail but it sure is a lot more private.

Free Software Foundation Hosts Free ‘Encryptfest’ Event on Sunday

Posted by EditorDavid • • View on SlashDot • Skip
The Free Software Foundation’s "EncryptFest" today covers both encryption and privacy. The free two-hour event runs from 13:00-15:00 Eastern Daylight Time (17:00-19:00 UTC), and includes:

— A discussion on “bulk surveillance, and how encryption protects personal privacy”

— A short video from renowned cryptographer Bruce Schneier.

— A discussion with Henry Fisher, the founder of Techlore and a digital rights activist

— A hands-on workshop on how you can encrypt your email using the FSF’s Email Self-Defense guide “as a concrete step to enhance your data privacy”

You may join us virtually, or if you are in Boston, Massachusetts, United States (the FSF’s home base), you can join us in-person at the Boston Public Library’s Copley Square branch. You may also join us in-person at MakeHaven in New Haven, Connecticut, US, and meet our deputy director Sean O’Brien. Whether attending our event online or in-person, please register. It will help us plan ahead and enable us to contact you about other important details before the workshop, like what to expect and what to bring…

Bulk surveillance violates our fundamental rights and makes free speech dangerous. Email encryption is an excellent tool you can use to shield yourself from bulk surveillance. Encrypting your email is also a concrete step towards protecting your data from others whose intentions may not be honorable.

What A Bunch of Clowns

By SlashbotAgent • • Score: 3 • Thread

25 minutes notice on Slashdot.

One and a half days notice on the FSF blog. Published on Sep 23, 2026 04:30 PM

Either they wanted a private party, or the FSF is a bunch of fucking clowns.

As eMudhra Exits Cert Business, Users Face New PKI Trust Decisions

Posted by EditorDavid • • View on SlashDot • Skip
“As of 2026, the company has issued more than 60 million digital certificates,” notes Wikipedia. But now, InfoWorld reports:
A certificate authority’s decision to abandon the global SSL/TLS market is exposing a weakness many organizations rarely examine: their dependence on complex PKI trust chains. Following the compromise of private keys behind eight of its intermediate certificate authorities, eMudhra is exiting the global SSL/TLS certificate business and is offering customers Sectigo-issued replacements… [In a press note the company added] that data sovereignty and compliance requirements had increased the business’s complexity and cost… The company said it will contact affected customers to replace certificates free of cost. It also said it will keep revocation and certificate status services running until every issued certificate has expired or been replaced…

Yash Kadakia, co-founder and CTO of Security Brigade, said that moving to another root operated by the same company does not necessarily address concerns over trust and governance. “The last thing organisations need is to migrate twice,” Kadakia said.
But there’s another concern, the article points out. “Analysts warn that enterprises may discover they have only limited visibility into the certificate hierarchies underpinning critical services.”
Replacing a website’s certificate may not address every dependency in an enterprise environment, according to Sakshi Grover, research director at IDC. She said residual exposure lies in systems that maintain their own trust stores and do not update on the same schedule as browsers. These include Java keystores, language runtimes, container images, mutual TLS configurations, proxies, load balancers, VPN and security appliances, and embedded devices. “The harder finding for many organizations will be that they can’t answer these questions at all,” Grover said, referring to where certificate trust decisions are made outside browsers and operating systems…

Grover recommended that security teams first identify where trust decisions occur outside browsers and operating systems, prioritising systems that accept connections from external parties and mutual TLS endpoints. Teams should then determine which systems can be updated to distrust a specific intermediate certificate or public key, she said.

WASF

By cellocgw • • Score: 3 • Thread

That is all.
The current version of the famous XKCD Jenga diagram now has that teensy post consisting of a dozen teensy posts one on top of the next.

Re:How Hard Can The Decision Be?

By fuzzyfuzzyfungus • • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread
That’s the problem. It’s relatively easy to fire a certificate issuer; but it can get surprisingly fiddly surprisingly fast to ensure that all your stuff actually distrusts one(unless you are responsible for basically nothing but a a handful of in-support major browsers and are OK with the choices their vendors make, in which case it will be handled for you relatively quickly; and was in this case). Basically any network connected widget is going to have at least one trusted root store embedded in it somewhere, possibly not updated anymore; and a number of software packages either bring their own or only partially track the OS-provided one.

You also have very little control over what other people do; both what CAs they chose to get certs from and what…questionable…partnership decisions the root CAs you do chose to trust. It’s not technically secret; but unless you are practically a full-time PKI nerd you probably didn’t know until after the fact that Comodo, now Sectigo, had quietly trusted eMudhra for you.

Re:Who is eMudhra

By bill_mcgonigle • • Score: 5, Interesting • Thread

This discussion on their inclusion in Mozilla is quite revealing:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/s…

Elsewhere it’s claimed that they used a FIPS HSM to generate their keys.

I did not see who their auditor was.

Did eMudhra lie?
Did the auditor lie?
Are FIPS HSM’s backdoored?
Do we have another Dual_EC_DRBG situation on our hands here?

If nobody is lying we could have just seen a huge cyberwar or false flag averted. Essential crypto gear could be totally buggered still.

PS Remember when Mozilla gave CACert absolute hell for years when they were tremendously more competent?

The HSM probably wasn’t the problem

By Xenographic • • Score: 5, Interesting • Thread

You should probably also read the ticket where eMudhra is removed because it clarifies a few things.

They’re using Ultimaco HSMs, but it seems likely they weren’t willing to pay the HSM vendor to unlock a feature, so they rolled their own and ended up generating the bad keys off-device and then loading them into the HSM externally. So it’s less likely that the HSM itself was bad and more likely they did something insecure and dumb to be cheap. There are some pointed questions there which they’ve just decided not to answer so far, including things they should be able to provide like the key generation script.

Re:The HSM probably wasn’t the problem

By Charlotte • • Score: 4, Interesting • Thread

This also clarifies things (why am I not surprised):

Current situation:

        The cross-signed certs are still unrevoked
        No response from Microsoft
        CCADB still showing certificates as unrevoked

Getty Images Files For US Bankruptcy, Advances Restructuring Plan

Posted by EditorDavid • • View on SlashDot • Skip
Reuters reports:
Last week, Getty announced plans to file for bankruptcy, marking a major reset after its planned merger with rival Shutterstock collapsed under the weight of heavy debt and growing competition from AI-generated imagery.

Getty said the affiliates of the Getty family and Koch Equity Development, which committed to provide up to $533 million in new equity, will own 100% of the company after the restructuring

It’s hard to compete against things like the DALL-E image generator.
Long-time Slashdot reader schwit1 quips that maybe “It’s hard to compete against things like the DALL-E image generator…”

Re:AI was going to hit them like a brick

By SumDog • • Score: 5, Interesting • Thread
They ingested some public domain photos and then went after people who used them, including the girl who released her photos as public domain. She lost her case because she had given up her license (long ago, before the days of the Creative Commons, which may have helped her). Getty should NOT have gone after people who used public domain photos, but a lawyer I talked to said Getty did add value in some ways by adding tags and search. There was some talk of adding license information to each asset so the enforcement teams wouldn’t go after stuff that was imported from the public domain, but I don’t know if that was ever implemented. (disclosure: former Getty contractor)

Re: AI was going to hit them like a brick

By blue trane • • Score: 5, Interesting • Thread

(Disclaimer: Written with an AI collaborator, because human editors were apparently too busy copy-pasting to proofread.)

Speaking of slop, notice how the summary ends by repeating the exact same sentence twice:

“It’s hard to compete against things like the DALL-E image generator.”
“Long-time Slashdot reader schwit1 quips that maybe ‘It’s hard to compete against things like the DALL-E image generator…’"

When humans publish duplicate-riddled writeups without reading them, it really raises the question of whether “human slop” is even setting a higher bar than “AI slop.”

To your point about “good enough”: market dynamics have always favored cheap and good-enough over high-quality and expensive for standard commercial uses. Stock photo giants like Getty relied on charging massive licensing fees for stock images (or bullying photographers over copyright).

When a restaurant menu, blog post, or corporate deck just needs a generic image of a salad or a boardroom, AI generation is free, instant, and “good enough” for the buyer. The tragedy isn’t that AI art is superior—it’s that for 90% of basic commercial applications, nobody wanted to pay Getty prices in the first place.

Re:AI was going to hit them like a brick

By kurkosdr • • Score: 5, Interesting • Thread
Exactly. Getty images has a habit of adding public domain images to their portfolio and then fraudulently claiming ownership and issuing DMCA takedowns to random people who happen to use those public domain images and threatening those people with legal action.

I will be happy to see them gone and let other stock image companies take their place, but unfortunately, it seems like they will emerge from bankruptcy.

Re:AI was going to hit them like a brick

By kurkosdr • • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread
What Getty Images is doing is worse. They take a public domain image, add it to their portfolio, and then fraudulently claim ownership (complete with sending DMCA takedowns and legal threats to anyone who happens to be using that public domain images). At least LLM companies don’t send DMCA takedowns and lawyers when their models ingest someone’s work.

Fuck Yea!

By SlashbotAgent • • Score: 5, Interesting • Thread

Getty Images is nothing but a bunch of IP trolls. I can’t wait for them to cease existing!

Good by and good riddance to Getty Images!

Old Blood Cells Have Been Transformed Into Brain Stem Cells That Get Younger

Posted by EditorDavid • • View on SlashDot • Skip
“Scientists have transformed old blood cells into young brain stem cells, which continued to grow younger as they grew older,” reports ScienceAlert:
Cellular transformations can be done in two main ways. The first, more circuitous route turns a specific cell back into a pluripotent stem cell, or an embryonic “blank slate,” and then into a different cell type. The second method involves a “direct conversion,” which skips the middle stage and directly transforms a cell into a different type. “Using this method, we have directly converted red blood cell precursors into neural stem cells,” summarizes Oliver Brüstle, the director of the Institute of Reconstructive Neurobiology at the University Hospital of Bonn…

The researchers used a virus to deliver two transcription factors, or proteins that attach to DNA to regulate gene activity, to get the cells to change their types. Then they used two genome-bloodhounding methods — DNA methylation measures and RNA sequencing — to track the resultant anti-aging effects and genetic behavior. By the 12th day after the viral “infection,” the cells started showing their new identity, ditching their blood-like proteins and replacing them with the expression of neural-like proteins instead. Initially, the epigenetic age (the DNA changes accumulated over time) of the EPCs was highly correlated with the chronological age of their donors [but] the neuronal stem cells kept getting younger as they got older… Over the following 50 to 100 days, they kept de-aging, eventually reaching about 5 percent of the donor age, with the majority of epigenetic age-related traits resetting by around 50 days of the conversion process…

In effect, the converted cells became 60 years younger in 50 days, the researchers note in their official statement.
The researchers, from the University Hospital of Bonn and the University of Bonn, in Germany, described their methods in the journal Aging Cell.

Egg, meet chicken

By flyingfsck • • Score: 3, Funny • Thread
Soon they can make a chicken that will grow up into an egg, putting a new spin on that age old conundrum

Believe it if you will

By HiThere • • Score: 5, Interesting • Thread

There is no good marker for the “age” of a cell. Mutations tend to accumulate over life, and there’s a reason for the Hayflick limit (even if it isn’t universal).

Manipulating cells so that they will continue dividing is dangerous to whoever gets them. It may be necessary, but don’t fool yourself about its danger. This sounds like a recipe for brain cancer.

We can’t stop it—you’re dying of youth!

By BrendaEM • • Score: 4, Funny • Thread
You’ll be four by next April, and an embryo soon after. The test confirm it.

CIOs Admit They Are Being Forced To Upgrade Enterprise IT

Posted by EditorDavid • • View on SlashDot • Skip
Computer Weekly reports:
A Censuswide survey of 2,018 CIOs and senior IT decision-makers at large organisations in the US and UK for independent software maintenance provider Origina has found that organisations spend almost $13m on upgrades pushed by IT providers. On average, 28% of enterprise software budgets go on upgrades, migrations and licensing changes driven by their IT suppliers. IT leaders who took part in the study reported that their organisation would not have actively chosen to upgrade…

The research published in Origina’s The Software Tax report, in partnership with Thinkers50, suggests these costs have shifted the balance of power between buyers and sellers. Customers exercise choice once, at the point of purchase. After that, control over the timing and terms of change passes largely to the IT supplier. Out of those surveyed, 78% agree their primary provider of enterprise software, rather than their own organisation, sets the timing and terms of change. A similar proportion said they would have no meaningful choice but to accept if a major enterprise IT provider changed its commercial terms. Some 76% said their organisation has very little real leverage in negotiations, and 80% said moving away from major IT suppliers would cause significant disruption…

Marshall Van Alstyne, professor at Boston University and co-author of The Software Tax, said: “Economists have studied this problem for decades: once a customer makes relationship-specific investments, the vendor gains leverage that no contract can fully anticipate. For CIOs, the lesson is simple: negotiate the exit before the entry. You don’t have to leave a vendor to benefit from being able to.”
The problem can be summarized succinctly, says Tomás O’Leary, CEO/founder of Origina and co-author of The Software Tax.

“The market has left some of the most experienced technology leaders in the world with little room to refuse, and that cost shows up in budgets, in engineering time and in innovation that never gets funded. We want to make that cost visible so customers can start to take back control of it.”

Quite so

By TimothyHollins • • Score: 5, Interesting • Thread

IT services, and SaaS providers, have a business model more similar to Facebook or Twitter. Their benefits are in direct conflict with their “customers’" benefit. A closed system with no interoperability? Benefit; customers cannot change provider. Complicated and obscure back-end? Benefit; customers pay more for support. Non-compliance with reporting and storage formats? Benefit; customers cannot combine with other vendors or export data. This creates quite a problem, as incentives run counter to more traditional business models and favor illegal/unethical business practices. Parasitic behavior in other words.

On the other hand, updating security is a requirement in the AI age. It is such a requirement that one would expect it to be included in the original contract.

Back in my day something called an interface was popular for programming: a promise that a modular implementation would support a set of functions with a specific output. I do feel that the industry should be required to accommodate such standards to enforce vendor interoperability. This would have the added benefit of opening up the field to smaller players, and competition would lead to increased innovation and less rent-seeking from major players (VM-ware is tied with Martin Shkreli for the top position here).

Re:LDAP and Linux are freely licensed

By crow • • Score: 4, Interesting • Thread

I don’t think the main issue is the end-user software. It’s all the other stuff that makes the company work. I work for a small startup, and I can list at least a dozen software platforms that we use, and I’m sure there are dozens more; none of which we could trivially migrate away from. (Fortunately, most of which I don’t really want to, as they work fairly well.)

Besides the technical stuff, there’s the HR benefits, the expense reporting, the door lock manager, the office reservation system, etc. I’m sure all of these are subscriptions. Many are probably quite inexpensive, but some aren’t.

At some point, it will be cheaper to tell Claude, “We use the OverPriced platform. Examine our usage of it, and develop a replacement platform tailored to our needs, and include a transition plan to suck all our existing data and configurations over to the new system.” But then there’s one more system to support locally, which may not be worth the cost. Or if OverPriced is too ridiculous, do the same, but spin it off as FairPriced and compete.

Re:There is no such thing as legacy anymore

By Anonymous Brave Guy • • Score: 5, Interesting • Thread

There are still 0.4% of people in denial and still running Windows 7 as well according to Statcounter, they are going to get just desserts if they don’t install Linux or force an upgrade to Windows 11.

The real world is more complicated than that. For example, we still have a Windows 7 machine in my office. It has some very expensive but still very useful software locked to it that has no direct replacement available on either Linux or Windows 11. Obviously we have to be careful about security and controlling access to a legacy OS like that.

Blunt statements about “forcing an upgrade” are worthless in this kind of situation. Chances are anyone who is still using a system like that has a good reason for it, at least if it’s in use professionally. We buy these assets because they solve problems. Those problems might or might not have a useful and cost-effective solution available on a different platform. If there is no modern solution available and the original still works, your statement that “the old ways are obsolete” is by definition false.

What you do need to do is rationally assess the risks and the threats you face and provide other ways of mitigating the risks and protecting against the threats if you can’t rely on, for example, a legacy OS that no longer gets security updates to be secure by itself. But then ideally you shouldn’t be relying on any single device or piece of software being secure as your only line of defence anyway, and assuming you already have some degree of defence in depth, accommodating unusual requirements is more a redistribution of security responsibilities than a fundamental change of approach.

The Microsoft model

By paul_engr • • Score: 4, Insightful • Thread
Nobody in the world, and I mean NOBODY asked for windows 11, yet here we are…

Who cares least controls the relationship

By symbolset • • Score: 4, Interesting • Thread

This story is so old it was the reason for Unix. Once the platform controls the essential business process, it owns the business. You work for them now, and all your aspirations are moot.

America’s Defense Department Is Building an ‘Elite New Tech Sabotage Agency’

Posted by EditorDavid • • View on SlashDot • Skip
America’s Defense Department “has spent months quietly building an elite new tech agency,” reports Politico, “to help covertly disrupt and sabotage foreign technology programs considered threats to American military superiority.”
Information on the Technology Support Office, or TSO as it is called internally, is nearly impossible to find on Pentagon websites, and the agency is mentioned by name only in several previously unreported Defense Department historical records and memoranda. While the specifics of its work are highly classified, POLITICO spoke with 12 current and former U.S. national security officials with varying degrees of knowledge about TSO to understand how the agency came to be, the broad contours of its mission and why its operations are shrouded in secrecy…

[The Pentagon’s Defense Secretary and Deputy Defense Secretary] established TSO quickly and without attracting outside scrutiny because they largely built the agency by reorganizing two classified Pentagon intelligence programs that have conducted similar clandestine tech-sabotage efforts at a smaller scale since 2023. But by creating an agency dedicated to expanding that work, the Defense Department is signaling its intent to ramp up a range of aggressive covert activities abroad — potentially including cyberattacks, supply chain disruptions and disinformation operations. Many of the people who spoke to POLITICO argued that the aggressive new initiative is needed to help the Pentagon counter foreign adversaries they say are harnessing artificial intelligence and advanced commercial technologies, such as drones, in creative ways that could erode America’s military advantage…

While TSO lacks the legal authority to conduct clandestine operations directly, it works closely with senior U.S. military and intelligence officers to develop cutting-edge tools and strategies to disrupt adversaries’ access to critical defense technologies — or subvert them from afar. TSO is staffed with engineers, special operators and intelligence officers, and its work spans everything from building bespoke hacking tools to planning elaborate deception operations that trick adversaries into installing faulty components — likely designed by TSO — in key foreign weapons platforms. TSO’s overarching goal is to “buy time or stop adversaries from developing technologies” that would most threaten the U.S. military in a major conflict, said a former U.S. intelligence official who worked closely with the agency… A second former Pentagon official and a former U.S. national security official said the agency has told some defense contractors it’s interested in offensive hacking capabilities. The former senior Pentagon intelligence official estimated that its budget for classified contracts alone is likely north of $1.5 billion.

They are seeking contractors on “the leading edge of technology,” that official said, and hope to procure “a whole host of tools wherever your imagination can go.”
Pentagon staff had been exploring the need for a new agency for over a year, the article explains. Creating a new agency with its own budget and procurement powers “would empower the agency to more quickly integrate cutting-edge tech from the private sector,” Pentagon staff concluded, “and think more strategically about which foreign defense technologies pose the biggest threats across U.S. military organizations.”

“Several people who spoke to POLITICO support TSO’s mission but worry that the secrecy surrounding its work could embolden current Pentagon leadership to carry out missions that flout international law or funnel coveted classified contracts to political allies.”

Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader schwit1 for sharing the news.

“lacks the legal authority”

By Black Parrot • • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

Yeah, like that matters.

aka terrorism.

By Meekrobe • • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread
nt

US Military takes NSA’s job-

By locater16 • • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread
You hired the most mathematicians in the world and built the world’s biggest super computer to crack passwords and find exploits at the NSA… and now drunk boi McManfluencer is going to waste money building a vastly less capable department doing the same thing cause you’re a bunch of dipshits that don’t know how anything works or what anything does.

Re:Elite Sabotage Agency?

By fahrbot-bot • • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

Oh. Republicans.

And pretty sure “Elite” means something different after the DOGE purge …

Trump’s Administration?

By BrendaEM • • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread
We already have an elite force destroying America: Donald Trump and his people.

Ask Slashdot: Can AI Bots Really Write Most of Your Code?

Posted by EditorDavid • • View on SlashDot
Tablizer (Slashdot reader #95,088) writes:
A recent Slashdot poll showed roughly 15% said bots write most their code. But in my experience, I generally find bots don’t and can’t understand very specific domains. The rules often come from institutional habits and/or arbitrary-seeming government policies and regulations.

So what exactly are the bots doing for you?

If there are regular patterns they’re milking, why can’t those patterns just be factored into modules and functions? So I’m skeptical of “AI writes most of my code”. Something smells off!
The real question might be whether bots can still write your code if there’s domain-specific rules and habits. So share your own thoughts and experiences in the comments.

Can AI bots really write most of your code?

Yes.

By bmajik • • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

Use a paid subscription to a frontier model. Make sure it knows how to run your build and run your tests.

If you’re worried, have it write tests. Look at the tests; see if they look like the right tests.

Tell it to ask you questions if it needs to resolve something ambiguous. Have it explain what it thinks it should do to the code. Ask it probing questions if you aren’t sure it understands. Ask it about design tradeoffs.

I have yet to find a problem where AI generated code doesn’t get me at least 90% of the way there. Multi-domain, multi-language, multi-platform. That includes stuff I was doing a year ago. It’s gotten dramatically better in 2026.

If someone has an example of a software engineering problem that AI actually did really badly on, I would like to know the model and see the prompts. I’m not saying it doesn’t exist. I’m saying I haven’t seen it yet, and I’m really curious.

I’ve done software development professionally since the 1990s. I started coding on the Apple ][ in 5th grade. I’ve had AI do the wrong thing, or misunderstand something, or miss something that seemed obvious to me. But on all of those same criteria; I’ve had human software engineers do far worse, far more often.

They can, but you can never trust it

By T34L • • Score: 5, Interesting • Thread

I’ve had many moments where I used an LLM to make something from scratch, and have been extremely impressed in how good the implementation was and how much time I spared at the (likely still very underpriced, I am expecting a rugpull there) expense it cost me.

The issue is, you do this three, four times and get reasonably functioning implementations. Often ugly, but whatever. I have use for a lot of temporary tools that really serve to explore something in a mixed analysis-prototype kinda regimen, that makes even un-maintainable proof of concept kinda thing that I can hammer out in 15 minutes of writing the spec and waiting for an hour to get a whole working program.

The issue is, the fifth time, the thing shits the bed and misunderstands something fundamental and in such a an incredibly inhumanely weird way that it can poison a knowledge base with a completely wrong conclusion, and if you don’t approach the LLM wit a borderline adversarial level of suspition and mistrust, you may never notice, and particularly enabled by the high speed of development you now have thanks to the elements, you end up with it deep in the foundation of your work, potentially poisoning days and days of effort that follow.

And while the overall code quality is improving and the whole thing gets faster, and cheaper, and like, median-decision smarter, the long tail of LLM-exclusive idiot moments persist, and the moment you wholly surrender the codebase to only ever touching it via the LLMs, they’ll ruin your day more and more often as time goes on. And before you know it, you’re using most of your newfound productivity to chase down these fuckin’ quantfart landmines, just to eventually enjoy the ultimate infuriation of the LLM telling you that thing you just found really is an obvious error it should have noticed the first time, acting like it’s all good.

Sometimes, I wonder how often LLMs bury a landmine that takes a company down. They made sure there’s no accountability. You’re always responsible for the code you didn’t write. Nobody will ever be able to come after Anthropic with the damages a customer sued them for. So, what happens when nobody is reading the code? What happens when nobody is left in the company that *can* read the code? I think this will become an increasingly frequent issue.

I do concur there’s utility to LLMs and I do expect to use them for the rest of my life. I suspect the difference between me and never-LLM-ers is that, I admit it, I never enjoyed coding in the first place. It’s just one of those things where, for most of my life, it was the one skill I had any degree of knack on that put bread on the table with minimal effort required on my part. Now instead of coding and hating it, I have to wipe the drool off an LLM’s chin, hating it. I don’t think it’s elevating me as a person. I’m not sure it elevates the projects I work on. I kinda don’t care. I’ve never been passionate about programming. I’ve been passionate about being able to afford food and living space. Fuck coding, and fuck coding with LLMs.

Yep

By ichthus • • Score: 5, Interesting • Thread
I currently use qwen 3.8 27b on a system with a couple of RTX 3060s that I bought on ebay for personal coding projects. I’ve been a firmware engineer professionally for a couple of decades, and I recently wanted to branch into mobile app development. Last year, I bought a book on React to learn cross-platform app dev. But, last month I built this pieced-together system for local AI and have come to the conclusion that I will never need to learn a new programming language again. This lil’ bastard does everthing!

And, professionally, my employer pays for a top-tier subscription that’s able to code, run command line tools, build and install firmware, and even connect to a logic analyzer and debug data lines.

Yes, “AI bots” can write most of your code, if you’re able to clearly explain what’s needed in your planning and action prompts. And, beyond that, AI can examine an existing code base, very clearly explain its function, and provide recommendations for refactors and other improvements.

At this point, it hasn’t replaced me as an engineer, but it’s definitely augmented my abilities it in a way that “paired programming” and other stupid Agile-touchy-feely methodologies never could.

Re:Yes.

By Anonymous Brave Guy • • Score: 5, Insightful • Thread

I don’t think it’s usually about what AI “did really badly on” at this point. It’s more about whether the overheads of adding all the guard rails and then reviewing and correcting all the output end up costing at least a similar amount to just writing the code yourself.

For a junior developer, I’d say frontier models passed their standard some time ago. Today’s LLMs routinely write code at the level of a competent junior-mid but with the advantage of an inhumanly broad knowledge base.

For a good senior, I’m much less convinced. The frontier models are hit-and-miss when it comes to writing good test suites, which matters a lot when they rely on tests so heavily to reach acceptable quality. IME, they are still mostly miss when it comes to the business insight that seniors will take into account and design/architecture decisions that keep the code manageable as it evolves. While they have become much better at recognising existing patterns in the code, and I would say they follow them reasonably well the majority of the time now, there are still bizarre anomalies that creep in, and they aren’t very good at extending those patterns when necessary.

I think AI advocates also tend to underestimate just how much time it takes to properly review what they are doing. Take a half-day Claude session to implement some new feature. It might take half an hour to give it the initial brief and then review its plan. Make a few edits and it’ll propose a new plan that is also long and detailed and has no edit markings to show what it changed so you have to review the whole thing, carefully and in detail, again to pick up the minor changes it also made for no obvious reason. Then you let it start doing its thing. You can’t really leave it unattended for long because it’ll stop to ask questions. Some of those questions might be whether it can run a screenful of ad-hoc Bash script to make some edits to your source files, because for some reason it decided not to show the actual edits as it usually would, so now you have to figure out what all the sed incantations are actually going to do while looking at those files in another editor or just trust it and then review all the changes properly later anyway. Sometimes it decides to change its plan mid-flight, but not always in a good way, and if you interrupt it to apply corrections or redirect, you break the neat plan flow it was in. Then you get to the end and you can finally see how everything it has done fits together, and you still need to review everything with the same care as you would with a junior developer’s code and probably apply a few fixes where it’s come up with weird names or not quite followed a pattern or imagined some instructions that were never there and made other changes in other parts of the system that should be out of scope.

If you read to the end of that last paragraph, you know how I typically feel at the end of a half day working with an agentic UI. And the thing is, I do those sessions as experiments fairly often to keep up with progress, but a lot of what I do is still written by hand, which gives me simple, objective data to compare the two ways of working and see whether the AI tools are really making me more productive once you take everything into account.

Currently, based on objective data comparing similar fully completed development tasks like for like, I still outperform agentic workflows using frontier models by about 25-50% on average, and I don’t have to pay anyone extra fees to do that, and subjectively I also find it more engaging to work that way. So I don’t really buy the hype about AIs making us all orders of magnitude more productive unless you’re happy to YOLO everything forever and take the much-discussed risks that comes with.

Personally, I think the optimum use of LLMs right now is probably not to use them for the whole coding workflow like that or rely on agentic tools, but to use them for tasks like answering quick questions about the existing code, doing research like a fancy search engine, writing a first draft of some boilerplate, and writing quick and dirty throwaway code for experiments, one-shot tools and the like, where you don’t really care about the quality as long as it gets the job done and you will see immediately if it has in fact got the job done. For these things, the LLM can read and type faster than me, and that’s useful.

Re:It’s complexity related

By serviscope_minor • • Score: 5, Informative • Thread

It’s amazingly good at some stuff and not at others.

It can bash out a CRUD app with a web based UI in basically no time, and really well. Think some boring internal tool like inventory management or something. Would cost a fortune to buy and also suck massively. It would from a project perspective count as long and complex, but from a pure software point of view, it’s not complicated stuff. It’s well documented. It’s also a horrible tech stack.

It’s also very good at indexing an unseen codebase and figuring out entry points for things. I’ve known people, or rather a person, that good, but I ain’t.

But I’ve also seen it make a complete shitshow of threading in a small, contained task. It’s also so-so if that at optimization. I set it on making thing go faster. I had the dataset, and specified tests. It found the hotspot and made it faster, which is frankly more than a lot of programmers can do. Most of them will smugly tell you everyone knows e.g. std::unordered_map is slow (and you’re implicitly a moron for using it), change everything to their own implementation on a Friday night then bugger off. So yeah better than that, but I let it churn for ages with its agents and it didn’t get much further. So I put some easy wins in by hand.

It is quite often wrong and i definitely worse in areas requiring domain expertise. But then again that’s the case with your average programmer. It’s also a bit weirdly pissy at time, but much less so that many programmers, so that’s a net win. It won’t flounce off if you tell it to delete a bunch of code it just wrote.

So…

Yeah I use it and quite a lot.