I can't use critical software that rejects AI to this degree for privacy reasons.

You can't expect to sufficiently protect your users privacy when not using AI for finding vulnerabilities.

Same thing with Asahi Linux with their highly anti-AI stance. I had a bit of hope when I saw someone was making an LLM assisted fork but it's not the same support.

While MacOS is likely becoming much more secure, Linux distros that reject AI would fall even further behind, if that's possible.

Edit: added critical

▲

thereader12 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Ai and privacy in the same sentence is wierd. You supported your argument, I guess, but unless you are using local ai, the developer would be sacrificing their own privacy.

▲

Cider9986 5 hours ago | parent [-]

>the developer would be sacrificing their own privacy

How so?

▲

sicktriple 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Something about having a bot controlled by a third party comb your entire codebase and make changes on your behalf strikes me as not the most privacy-friendly approach to software. I know your question wasn't being asked in good faith, but I've answered it honestly.

▲

Cider9986 4 hours ago | parent [-]

It was asked in good faith.

Going by this definition [1]:

>Privacy is the assurance that your data is only seen by the parties you intend to view it.

I’ve been assuming we’re using open source software. When developing open source, you’re putting your code out publicly. Your code is not private data.

As far as the agent acting on your computer, you can easily use Claude Code on the web on Anthropic’s VMs, or just run it in something like UTM or another user on your laptop.

So I don’t see how this is a big loss of privacy. By the definition, you’re intending Anthropic to see your code just as anyone else can.

Ways you could use AI in a non-privacy respecting way would be like letting it read all your personal notes while assuming the AI company will not share them or look at them. I don’t see code as sensitive like this.

Your prompts, pattern of speech, usage patterns, when you work, stuff you say to the LLM besides coding related. Those would be a fair argument for compromising the privacy of the developer. But as long as you consider what you say to be public, then you're intending that data to be out their, so your privacy isn't being compromised. You could make the same argument about developing in the open on GitHub. Anyone can learn about your usage patterns, time zone, etc. It is also fair to say you're giving that AI company more power over you by giving them exclusively that information, while on GitHub it would be information given to everyone. .

[1] https://www.privacyguides.org/en/basics/why-privacy-matters/

▲

sicktriple 4 hours ago | parent [-]

You may not, but that entirely comes down to who you're willing to trust. Its certainly not unreasonable for an individual to handle information deemed too sensitive to be allowed to be exfiltrated to a third party. Your use case is not the same as the entire world's.

	▲	Cider9986 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The comment I replied to was saying that "the developer sacrificing their own privacy". I don't think AI for coding significantly invades developers personal privacy.

▲

trollbridge 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The current hope is to eventually upstream the “fork” (Gravity) into the Linux kernel. The Asahi project can continue to run in parallel.

The Linux kernel extensively uses AI now; most lkml submissions have an Assisted-by: LLM tag.