On Fri, Jul 31, 2026 at 3:12 AM Peter Gutmann <[email protected]> wrote: > > Alan Coopersmith <[email protected]> writes: > > >2) The GNOME security team will no longer forward vulnerability reports > > to projects that ban AI-generated content, since most reports they > > get these days have at least some AI-generated content. > > So you've got a bunch of projects where people are clamoring for them to > reject anything that might have been touched by AI, and another bunch of > projects where people have decided to refuse to take part in anything that > rejects things that have been touched by AI.
It's not that I think projects should refuse to take part in anything that rejects things that have been touched by AI. I don't have any philosophical problem with it at all, if one wants to reject AI, go ahead. But if a project is intentionally not receiving security vulnerability reports (and therefore not repairing the corresponding issues) because the reports were AI-assisted, that means the latest version of an application has a much higher-than-normal likelihood of having unpatched vulnerabilities. It's just a practical measure to avoid using such programs for processing untrusted data, and it seems security-conscious users would benefit from knowing what projects they need to use with care for these reasons. -- Aaron > Just to sort things out in my mind, which of the two is the People's Front of > Judea and which is the Judean People's Front? > > Peter.
