this should be a controversial post lol

  • sam@r1b.it
    5·
    16 days ago

    I’ve always been conflicted on LTS. As a Linux hobbyist, I’ve used bleeding-edge software for years and had very few breaks and issues, but as someone who also maintains their own instance, the added level of reassurance is nice. Do I think my stuff will break? No, thats why I use Arch/Artix on my laptop. Am I still anxious about it? Yes, that’s why I use Debian for my servers

  • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
    14·
    17 days ago

    Using LLMs to backport approved paches in upstream software into older versions should be significantly easier and more accurate than producing the original patch and reviewing it. In the backport scenario the knowledge that the patch is “good” is already settled. The source around it is in place so the LLM has very tightly bounded context to work with, left with very little freedom to make mistakes. I think LLMs will make LTS releases significantly easier to maintain.

    Debian btw.

    • ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.netEnglish
      4·
      17 days ago

      Greg KH in a recent talk said even the most advanced LLM produces an incorrect result 50% of the time, I would not trust it to perform more reliably than a human even with tight boundaries.

      • ViatorOmnium@piefed.socialEnglish
        1·
        17 days ago

        They will do better if you give them a patch to re-apply, so it’s not going to be as bad. But the review effort is probably going to eat up the time saved applying the patch, since you can’t throw a coin on the LLM having done any kind of due diligence on side-effects.