areyouevenreal

That's already being attempted in the form of Redox OS. Though I don't think it's 100% POSIX compliant. Linux has so much inertia though, and Linus seems all for including Rust in Linux.

Tannins can be good for you, but not the alcohol. You could get similar benefits drinking alcohol free wine or even just really tannin rich grape juice. Even a cup of tea has good tannins though.

The rust guys would have gained a lot more traction by just asking the C guys to keep a bunch of comments up to date detailing the semantics and error checking procedures, and promising to edit their rust API if the C code changes, but I suspect they didn't ask for that because they know that no guarantees come from a comment and they want to be sure that the rust code works across all the possible scenarios and in rust culture, that is always documented in the type system where it can be enforced.

I could be being daft but I thought this is more or less what the Rust guys were asking for. Tell us the current symantics of the system, and if it changes in future let us know what the new semantics are and we will fix the Rust code accordingly.

I do understand what you mean though about enforcing restrictions on what the C guys can do without breaking the Rust code. I think you run into situations wherever two languages meet. The way most projects handle this is the upstream releases a new version, or a release candidate of a new version with their breaking changes documented and then downstream updates their stuff accordingly when they get time. Obviously this is one project, but I imagine it's possible for the C guys to update stuff in a pull request and then drop an email in LKML to the Rust guys so they know stuff needs fixing. None of this seems that hard to me.

Ultimately though everything here is Linus decision. Either your in or your out. If Linus says yes to Rust doing whatever then that's what's going to happen. Likewise if he says no, then it's not going to happen that way. Until he weighs in no one can really say how this will end.

Personally though I disagree with the C guys. Safety features are important and should be used where it is practical to do so. Until now C has had the justification that it's still the fastest language and by a significant margin. Now a somewhat safe language like Rust exists with the same speed and capabilities I don't think we can afford to continue ignoring safety for the sake of a few bruised egos. If this was a proper industry like aviation safety would always come first, and if that means adopting new technologies and forcing people to adapt. I can understand if C devs have a hard time adapting, I don't expect it to happen overnight. The expectation though should be they should learn some Rust eventually, even if it's just enough to know the type signatures and what not that they might break with their changes to C code. Kernel devs are supposed to be some of the smartest computer people out there. If they can't learn even that small amount of another language then should they really still be kernel developers?

This is false. Anyone who has used these tools for long enough can tell you this is false.

LLMs have been used to write computer code, craft malware, and even semi-independently hack systems with the support of other pieces of software. They can even grade student's work and give feedback, but it's unclear how accurate this will be. As someone who actually researches the use of both LLMs and other forms of AI you are severely underestimating their current capabilities, never mind what they can do in the future.

I also don't know where you came to the conclusion that hardware performance is always an issue, given that LLM model size varies immensely as does the performance requirements. There are LLMs that can run and run well on an average laptop or even smartphone. It honestly makes me think you have never heard of LLaMa models inc. TinyLLaMa or similar projects.

Future LLMs will still only have this capability, but since their models will have been trained on LLM generated garbage their results will quickly diverge from anything even remotely intelligible.

You can filter data you get from the internet to websites archived before LLMs were even invented as a concept. This is trivial to do for some data sets as well. Some data sets used for this training have already been created without LLM output (think about how the first LLM was trained).

Sources:

• https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.06664
• https://doi.org/10.1145/3607505.3607513
• https://medium.com/google-developer-experts/ml-story-mobilellama3-run-llama3-locally-on-mobile-36182fed3889
• https://github.com/jzhang38/TinyLlama
• Both my own personal direct experience and the experience of my research supervisor, with a dash of basic computer systems knowledge

LLMs have legitimate uses today even if they are currently somewhat limited. In the future they will have more legitimate and illegitimate uses. The capabilities of current LLMs are often oversold though, which leads to a lot of this resentment.

Edit: also LLMs very much are AI (specifically ANI) and ML. It's literally a form of deep learning. It's not AGI, but nobody with half a brain ever claimed it was.

The problem is that some people like me won't get that reference and instead think AIs are universally bad. A lot of people already think this way, and it's hard to know who believes what.

They aren't asking C devs to write Rust code, which is what the guy being a heckler was claiming. Why don't they want to right Rust? For exactly the reasons you describe. The thing is though that's not currently being asked of them, all they actually want is the documentation to create that code themselves.

You really don't have to explain any of the culture clash to me lol. I've written both C/C++ and Rust. My C and C++ coding skills are demonstrably better (or at least used to be, it's been a while) than my Rust skills. Why? Because of how complex those guardrails are. The difference is I have the self awareness to know that my lack of Rust skills doesn't mean that the language is bad, or that C is a safe language to use. Rust tutorials could be improved. Perhaps an easier to use language like Zig might be more useful for some people. I feel like it's a good compromise between safety and ease of use. Rust though is still incredibly progressive for the industry, and will improve systems security, maintainability and reliability going forward if only people would stop getting in the way.

AI at this stage is just a tool. This might change one day, but today is not that day. Blame the user, not the tool.

AI and ML was being used to assist in scientific research long before ChatGPT or StableDiffusion hit the mainstream news cycle. AIs can be used to predict all sorts of outcomes, including ones relevant to climate, weather, even medical treatment. The University I work for even have a funded PhD program looking at using AI algorithms to detect cancer better, I found out because one of my friends is applying for it.

The research I am doing with AI is not quite as important as that, but it could shape the future of both cyber security and education, as I am looking at using for teaching cyber security students about ethical hacking and security. Do people also use LLMs to hack businesses or government organisations and cause mayhem? Quite probably, and they definitely will in the future. That doesn't mean that the tool itself is bad, just that some people will inevitably abuse it.

Not all of this stuff is run by private businesses either. A lot of work is done by open source devs working on improving publicly available AI and ML models in their spare time. Likewise some of this stuff is publicly funded through universities like mine. There are people way better than me out there using AIs for all sorts of good things including stopping hackers, curing patients, teaching the next generation, or monitoring climate change. Some of them have been doing it for years.

Netflix is using FreeBSD for servers. You can't blame everything they do wrong as being a problem with the new hires. They are using an OS older than Linux that changes more slowly than Linux, simply because it performs the best for their specific application. Rate of change isn't the issue here.

In fact that's 90% of what this comment is. Blaming new people and new techniques for problems when you aren't a part of that organisation and don't actually know what's happening.

Working with computers is not the same as working with construction equipment. Some degree of fluid intelligence is needed in this field, no matter how experienced you might be, just like how a surgeon needs steady hands. The people you call greybeards aren't nearly as old as your father is. We are talking about people who are in their 50s and 40s. They don't have that level of cognitive decline yet. Likewise some things like ext4 aren't likely going to be ported to Rust now or even ever. They can keep maintaining them as they are now for the foreseeable future. Plus I don't want people to have to keep working into their 70s and 80s. At some point it becomes elder abuse. Let people retire man.

C has existed for a long time now. We've been trying to replace it for ages, for most of it's lifespan even. C++ actually was one of the new options at one point. I get it seemed immovable only a decade ago, and I think that has lulled people into a false sense of security. In truth it was inevitable it would have to be replaced one day. It's already well outlived the life expectancy of a programming language. Just think about Ruby: created long after C yet has already become mostly irrelevant. You talk about the maximum rate of tool change, but C is one of the oldest tools we have, keeping it around would be almost 0 rate of tool change over decades. If you can't see that C is very slowly dying then you haven't seen the writing on the wall for the past several years. It's on you at that point.

We should look back with pride at everything that has been accomplished with C, and just how long it's been relevant. We can do this while still acknowledging it needs to be phased out gradually.

No one is asking for change that rapid either. Linux started adopting Rust four years ago now. It's probably still going to have C code inside it for at least a decade from now. This isn't some quick change, it's a gradual process. People have plenty of time to adapt, and those who are too old to do so will be around retirement agent if not already dead by the time C is fully phased out.

We of course play plenty of video games together to keep him sharp. We also eat mushrooms, paper when necessary, and he works out a lot. We do all we can, believe me.

Honestly you take more care of yourself and your father than I do. I am only in my 20s and suck at video games. If I took mushies or LSD I would probably lose my mind, assuming it's all still there in the first place. I suspect there is a good reason why people like me only have a life expectancy of 58 or so.

C has been around for a very long time. I don't think wanting to replace a 1970s language, that was old when current gray beards were young is a bad thing. People have had more than enough time, and still have a good decade or two to make their careers writing and maintaining C code. Sometimes things have to change, old people be damned. It's diatribes like this that remind me the human race advances one body at a time as those holding us back die out.

Edit: also we aren't talking about people in their 70s and 80s here. Most of these "greybeards" are in their 40s and 50s at most. Linux itself is from the 1990s and is therefore more modern than C.

At this point you might as well complain about the mods and admins on Lemmy as tons of them are out of wack. I have had comments removed for stating facts that every should know just because it doesn't agree with the lemmy hivemind. For example say anything positive about AI or how it was used before the likes of ChatGPT came around.