https://github.com/RsyncProject/rsync/commit/859d44fa4f14207...

Which is a fix to the security issue CVE-2026-29518: https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-29518

A CVE reported by VulnCheck which is a company that uses AI to find software vulnerabilitys.

I would honestly blame this on bad test coverage.

If you look at most of the commits where Claude is "co-author" you see that 80% of are just adding new tests. Which is exactly what would be needed if low test coverage was the issue.

I have done the exact same thing long before AI was a thing. You are rushed to "FIX" some security issue that someone reported. It is a scenario where you are working in code that you did not write or you wrote it so long ago that you cant remember. You try your best to just fix the security issue but you perturb something else while doing it.

It is strange to read as the topic A has often not been introduced and introducing it by saying what it is not makes very little sense to a new reader.

The virtualised server thing was not a AWS thing, the thing that was were their other services. For example instead of renting a virtual server and installing a database on it. You could rent the database; that was sort of a new thing that AWS made in to thing.

It was never cheaper what you paid for was a promise of fire and forget. You would no longer need to worry about any responsibility to update the server or the database cause the AWS crew took care of that.

In this case i would guess it is mostly a justification for taking a part of the LLM pie.

But consciousness is also "just a story" (a complicated one) that the human body tells the human mind.

We cant know from the outside if "the story" inside a LLM is detailed enough to emulate what we might call a felling of what it is to be the character in the story while it is telling the story.

It is similar to the fact that we cant know that other people have that subjective experience. In humans we think we have the right to assume cause we are quite similar in build to begin with.

Jumping back to the original subject to explain where i am in this. I personally don't think the entities in the storys of todays LLMs is detailed enough to have what we call human consciousness, mostly cause we are not training them to develop anything similar to that. Mabye they could have some type of weak qualia but i suspect most insects probably have much more qualia than the characters in todays LLMs. But that is quite a vague guess which is not based on enough data in my mind.

On another point, LLMs are not conscious if anything is conscious, it is something being modeled inside the network. Basically if an LLM simulates a conscious entity, that doesn't mean the LLM itself is conscious; stating that is making some type of category error. So the fact that LLMs are just useful statistical generators would not mean that sentience could not appear out of it.

Paradoxes comes from contradictions, a mathematical system that contains contradictions is a failed mathematical system.

Probably this is people asking the glasses something about what they see and the glasses uploading video for classification to generate an answer.

People think it is "just AI" so are not very concerned about privacy.

Learning from licensed material is generally accepted in humans, you may learn from something and then create something else and the new thing is not considered legally problematic with the exception of patents i guess.

Whether the same thing holds true for electronic systems is where people disagree if you look at the problem space in its essence. I land on the side that it is the same thing(humans and electronic systems learning), some seam to think it is a different thing.

Anything else would be completely ridiculous given current laws in most countries.

It would be as ridiculous as blaming the car in a car accident where you drove over someone.

"Who owns the text microsoft word helped you write?"

Claude code is a software tool not a legal entity.

The system did delete the database cause the author built it like that.

You really have to look at the power analysis and the sample size together.

Saying this as a general truth. I am not sure about the power of the method in this papper, i only read the abstract.

If a message will do a cache recreation the cost for that should be viewable.