Key detail in the actual memo is that they’re not using just an LLM. “Wallach anticipates proposals that include novel combinations of software analysis, such as static and dynamic analysis, and large language models.”

They also are clearly aware of scope limitations. They explicitly call out some software, like entire kernels or pointer arithmetic heavy code, as being out of scope. They also seem to not anticipate 100% automation.

So with context, they seem open to any solutions to “how can we convert legacy C to Rust.” Obviously LLMs and machine learning are attractive avenues of investigation, current models are demonstrably able to write some valid Rust and transliterate some code. I use them, they work more often than not for simpler tasks.

TL;DR: they want to accelerate converting C to Rust. LLMs and machine learning are some techniques they’re investigating as components.

I have LTS and zen kernels installed in addition to the default Arch one, that should prevent this yes?

What do you mean by “this stuff?” Machine learning models are a fundamental part of spam prevention, have been for years. The concept is just flipping it around for use by the individual, not the platform.

If by reliably you mean 99% certainty of one particular review, yeah I wouldn’t believe it either. 95% confidence interval of what proportion of a given page’s reviews are bots, now that’s plausible. If a human can tell if a review was botted you can certainly train a model to do so as well.

Cool it with the universal AI hate. There are many kinds of AI, detecting fake reviews is a totally reasonable and useful case.

KDE Connect and Syncthing do the trick for most stuff. For all else, all hail the USB C M.2 NVME enclosure.

For people lacking context, Boeing split off and sold their division that became Spriti Aerosystems. The theory at the time was that Boeing’s core competency wasn’t building airplanes, it was managing relationships with other vendors. In particular, the actual plane manufacturing part of the company was undesirable due to perceived poor “Return on Net Assets.” The theory they pitched to shareholders was they should sell off non obviously profitable divisions so they reduced asset liability while keeping the same or better profits.

That was their explanation, of course it was a terrible idea.

Title worried me for a moment that they were dropping Steam Input; happy to see they seem intent on the opposite.