Vue normale

Rust Will Save Linux From AI, Says Greg Kroah-Hartman

Par : BeauHD
27 mai 2026 à 21:00
Linux stable kernel maintainer Greg Kroah-Hartman says Rust can help Linux deal with a flood of AI-discovered security bugs (namely Dirty Frag, Copy Fail, and Fragnesia) by preventing common C mistakes around memory, locking, error handling, and untrusted data at build time rather than during human review. It's "not a silver bullet" and does not mean rewriting the whole kernel, but he said new drivers and subsystems will increasingly use Rust as Linux evolves forward. ZDNet reports: Kroah-Hartman illustrated those pitfalls with real C bugs in the kernel, including a 15-year-old Bluetooth bug that dereferenced a pointer without checking it and a Xen bug where "we forgot to unlock" in an error path. "The majority of the bugs in the kernel are this tiny, minor stuff," he explained. "Error conditions aren't checked, locks aren't forgotten, unreleased memories leak, and vulnerabilities add up over time. They crash the kernel. This is what we live with in C. This is why we don't like it." Kroah-Hartman argued that the "best beauty of Rust" is catching those mistakes at build time rather than in review. For example, when it comes to locking, he highlighted Rust's locking abstractions in the kernel: "The only way you can get access to inner pointers of structures is by grabbing that lock, and releasing the lock automatically. The compiler does it, it's guarded, the lock happens, everything's happy. You just can't write code to access these values...without grabbing the lock. The compiler will not let you." Those properties, he argued, directly remove a huge fraction of the bugs he sees: "This is going to save us those two things. First, 60% of the bugs in the kernel right there, they're gone. Thank you." The payoff is earlier, more automated enforcement: "If this happens at build time, not review time, don't make me a maintainer who has to read your code [and] say, 'Oh, then you properly check that error value. Oh, did you properly grab the locks in the right spot?' Rust gives us that for free. This is the best thing ever." Even if Rust vanished tomorrow, Kroah-Hartman argued, it has already forced the kernel to clean up C code and interfaces. He credited Rust's influence outright: "We stole this from Rust. Thank you. It's a good idea, so if Rust disappeared tomorrow, we have cleaned up the C code in the kernel so much and taken in the ideas. We thank you, you've made Linux better with it just by existing." [...] What ultimately sold a number of core maintainers, including him, on Rust was how it "makes reviewing code easier." With CI [Continuous Integration] bots enforcing builds and Rust's type system enforcing key invariants, maintainers can "focus on the logic" rather than resource bookkeeping: "I can care about that one function. I don't have to worry about the rest of this stuff, because I assume that it works properly, because it was built properly." Internally, he said, the top maintainers have already made their call on Rust's status: "The Linux kernel maintainers, we get together every year and talk about what the processes are doing. Last year, we said the Rust experiment is over. It's not an experiment. This is for real." The rationale: "The people behind it are real. We trust them. We know what they're doing. They've shown and put in the work to make Rust a viable language in the kernel, and we're going to make this stick. Let's go full speed ahead. And, as always," he said wryly, "world domination proceeds." "If you never remember anything else in my talk, just remember these four words. It came from Microsoft Security many, many years ago," Kroah-Hartman told attendees. "They realized all input is evil. You have to validate all input."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

The AI Fight Brewing Inside the New York Times

Par : BeauHD
27 mai 2026 à 20:20
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: How newsrooms should use AI -- or if they should at all -- has been a recurrent debate within the media industry over the last several years. Increasingly, these rules are being hammered out at the bargaining table between unions and publishers. Right now, employees at The New York Times are gearing up for a fight. Unionized staff with the Tech Guild say Times management has refused to provide the union with information related to how the company has used AI, its plans for AI use in the future, and how it will affect employees' jobs and workflow. (The union filed an unfair labor practice charge earlier this month.) The Tech Guild, a NewsGuild of New York unit of around 700 software engineers, designers, product and project managers, and data analysts, also filed grievances saying Times management violated their collective bargaining agreement when it started using two internal AI tools that track and evaluate employee performance and activity. [...] Both the Tech Guild and the Times Guild (which represents 1,500 editorial, ad sales, and support staff at the Times) filed unfair labor practice charges against the Times, saying that company violated labor law by refusing to respond to their requests for information around AI use at the outlet. The Times did not respond to specific questions about how it uses DX and Glean, but spokesperson Danielle Rhoades Ha said in an email that the company disagrees with the characterizations made in grievances and that it would respond as part of its "normal contractual process." "Likewise, we will respond to this Request for Information (RFI) in due course as we've done with 80+ other RFIs from the Guild in recent years," Rhoades Ha said. The Times Guild is currently bargaining a new contract, pushing for robust protections against AI, like requirements that a human is behind any AI tool being used, that any journalism utilizing AI is transparently labeled, and that staff are compensated for AI model training deals the company might make. The Times deploys artificial intelligence tools for some reporting, like using it to parse millions of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein or scan satellite images of Gaza to try to find where Israel had dropped a specific kind of bomb. [...] [Ben Harnett, a software engineer at the Times and chair of the unit's generative AI committee] emphasizes that the unit's position is not that AI shouldn't ever be used, but that workers should have a say in how it's deployed. Metrics like how many tokens an employee uses or how often they're using AI to do their jobs create pressure to do more and incentives that don't align with doing quality work. "It's going to distract [you] from actually doing a good job, which is what we think the company should want," he says. Two of the contentious AI tools mentioned in the report are DX and Glean. DX is an engineering productivity tool that tracks a developer's output, generative AI use, efficiency, and other related metrics. Meanwhile, Glean is an internal knowledge-search tool that indexes materials like wikis, GitHub documents, Google Docs, and emails so employees can query company information. The concern, according to Times Tech Guild members, is that data meant to measure broader developer experience is now being applied to individuals and cited in performance or disciplinary contexts. There's also worry that it could be used to monitor individual contributions and produce false or misleading results.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Tech CEOs Are Apparently Suffering From AI Psychosis

Par : BeauHD
27 mai 2026 à 17:00
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: There is a certain wildness in the tech industry these days that both mimics previous eras of large changes, like cloud computing (runaway costs in the early days), and is like nothing we've ever seen before (record revenues accompanied by mass layoffs). One possible explanation: tech executives, especially CEOs, are collectively suffering from delusions of AI grandeur. And at least one tech CEO has said as much out loud: Box founder Aaron Levie. "CEOs are uniquely prone to AI psychosis because they're sufficiently distant from the last mile of work that still has to happen to generate most value with AI," Levie wrote on X. CEOs "play with AI," develop a prototype, or generate a contract, to use Levie's examples, and then make the leap to believing agents can do the work. But these top-level executives aren't the people who have to review code, discover bugs, and identify calls to hallucinated libraries before software is deployed. They aren't responsible for training AI models on a company's idiosyncratic contract terms, nor do they have to spend days combing through contracts to find sneaky terms, as Levie indicates. In other words, Levie's theory posits, CEOs don't really understand processes well enough to know what really can and can't be automated. But that lack of knowledge doesn't stop them from acting on their beliefs. [...] So what are CEOs to do instead? Levie advises CEOs to use AI "a ton" to really see what it can and can't do, "and come out the other side with an appreciation for both the upside and the real work."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Company Behind School Bus AI Cameras Wants To Share Footage With Police

Par : BeauHD
27 mai 2026 à 15:00
joshuark writes: BusPatrol, a company that has installed AI-powered cameras in tens of thousands of school buses around the U.S., now plans to turn those cameras into automatic license plate readers (ALPRs), capturing the location of every vehicle the buses drive past, and give that data to law enforcement, 404 Media has learned. BusPatrol has already taken steps to share the collected data with law enforcement contracting giant Axon, according to leaked BusPatrol documents and a source with knowledge of the plans. BusPatrol has acknowledged how controversial its plan to collect and share this data is, pointing specifically to concerns about ICE using license plate data, but emphasizes the likely success of selling the angle of protecting children. "Who would have thought that school buses would be turned into the mass surveillance state?," Michael Soyfer, an attorney from the Institute for Justice, which has various ongoing ALPR-related lawsuits The Institute for Justice argues that warrantless use of ALPR systems is unconstitutional, describing similar systems as a "dragnet." Kate Spree, senior manager of brand communications at BusPatrol, said in an email "This inquiry is based on a false premise and inaccurate information. BusPatrol does not pool or sell data across communities; student safety program data is used only to support the BusPatrol program in the community where that data was created." When 404 Media asked clarifying questions and said that the reporting is based on leaked BusPatrol material, Spree stopped replying to text messages and emails. This plan gives new meaning to the animated cartoon series "The Magic School Bus"... Further reading: FBI Wants to Buy Nationwide Access to License Plate Readers

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Essai Geely E5 de 218 ch

27 mai 2026 à 06:01

Cela faisait bien au moins une semaine qu’un constructeur chinois n’avait pas débarqué en France. Voici venu le tour de Geely Auto de venir sur notre territoire avec deux SUV, dont l’électrique E5. Après une présentation en grande pompe au Carrousel du Louvre, quelques jours après l’autre Chinois Denza à l’Opéra Garnier, nous nous sommes rendus dès le lendemain en Bretagne pour en prendre le volant.

Geely, ce géant chinois qui connaît déjà bien l’Europe

Oui, vous avez déjà entendu parler de Geely, mais pas en tant que constructeur. Ce groupe chinois, vieux de 40 ans, est devenu depuis un géant mondial de l’automobile. On ne va pas refaire toute l’histoire, mais celui qui occupe aujourd’hui la première place sur son marché domestique possède dans son portefeuille, dans le désordre, Volvo Cars, Polestar, Zeekr, Lotus, et partage la moitié de Smart avec Mercedes, entre autres. Le groupe a de l’appétit puisqu’il vise le top 5 mondial d’ici la fin de la décennie, grâce notamment à son expansion en Europe. On a l’impression de vous conter une histoire déjà entendue, mais avec l’arrivée d’un modèle hybride Starray EM-i et d’un électrique E5, Geely Auto vient s’attaquer frontalement aux généralistes.

Cette E5 se la joue plutôt discrète dans son style. Les formes policées et fluides la rendent quasiment invisible dans la circulation. Même le logo de la marque, un bouclier composé de six éléments, paraît timide sur la face avant dépourvue de calandre. On trouve bien en dessous des aérations avec des volets actifs. Son profil très lisse intègre des poignées de porte escamotables. L’arrière n’apparaît pas particulièrement travaillé non plus, avec des feux tout en longueur et plutôt fins. Un becquet de toit habille le haut de la lunette arrière. La trappe de recharge se trouve sur l’aile avant droite. Plus classique que ça, difficile de faire.

L’essentiel et de l’espace

À bord, là aussi, on note que le Chinois se la joue zen avec un mobilier dépouillé, peut-être même un peu trop. Vision tête haute, un large écran derrière le volant et une énorme dalle tactile au milieu de la planche de bord demandent un temps d’adaptation, mais on en loue la lisibilité quasi parfaite. La console, assez enveloppante, est également flottante. On regrette souvent l’absence de molette de volume dans les voitures actuelles, mais ici elle s’avère gigantesque. Le volant n’apparaît pas spécialement rond, puisqu’il est très aplati en bas, à peine moins en haut, et ne compte que deux branches. Cela ressemble davantage à un gouvernail de Boeing qu’à un volant.

Devant le vide-poche fermé, on trouve un chargeur à induction qui refroidit assez mal les téléphones, si l’on en croit la température du nôtre lors de notre essai. Dans l’espace situé en dessous, on trouve une prise USB-C et une USB-A, qui, dans notre monde moderne, devient presque inutile. On note la présence de nombreux revêtements doux et rembourrés, même sur les tapis. L’assemblage apparaît plutôt correct. Comme pour beaucoup de voitures, on s’interroge surtout sur la tenue dans le temps des matériaux. Comme toute bonne chinoise qui se respecte, l’espace à l’arrière ne manque pas. En revanche, on est déçu par le manque de confort de l’assise passager type aviation d’affaires, finalement peu agréable en configuration allongée. Notez une capacité de coffre de 461 l avec double fond.

Une autonomie ambitieuse

Le Geely E5 dispose d’un moteur développant une puissance modeste de 218 chevaux pour un SUV électrique, avec un couple de 320 Nm. La batterie de 68,4 kWh de capacité (60,2 kWh pour l’entrée de gamme) assure une autonomie de 475 km selon le protocole WLTP. Comme souvent, il est difficile de faire des projections sur le kilométrage réel possible dans notre usage sur un parcours aussi court. Néanmoins, le chiffre annoncé par Geely nous a paru un peu ambitieux compte tenu de la consommation relevée. Il nous faudra toutefois le reprendre pour mieux vérifier sa capacité à parcourir de longues distances.

En tout cas, il ne se montre pas particulièrement amorphe lorsqu’il s’agit de décoller, avec un 0 à 100 km/h abattu en à peine 7 secondes. En réalité, il fait preuve d’une fluidité peu commune pour un véhicule électrique de cette puissance, en évitant l’effet “fusée” à chaque démarrage. Cela participe grandement au confort de conduite observé. Car ce Geely E5 se distingue par une douceur de conduite très agréable pour enchaîner les kilomètres dans une quiétude qui peut presque pousser à l’endormissement si l’on ne coupe pas les ADAS bruyants, pour ne pas dire agaçants. Heureusement, ces alertes sonores sont faciles à désactiver.

Tout pour le confort

L’E5 repose sur la plateforme GEA, il s’agit donc d’une traction. L’architecture apparaît assez classique, notamment pour une électrique, avec les batteries dans le plancher et des suspensions de conception traditionnelle. Geely a réussi le tour de force de maintenir l’E5 largement sous les 2 tonnes sur la balance, avec 1 815 kg dans sa configuration la plus lourde. La voiture encaisse correctement les obstacles urbains, notamment les dos-d’âne, mais on note une certaine sensibilité au rebond. Rien de vraiment rédhibitoire, e SUV reste très confortable. Il s’apprécie clairement à un rythme de bon père de famille.

Tout semble pensé pour maximiser le confort. Il existe bien un mode Sport, mais à part renforcer la consistance de la direction, ce qui est appréciable, il n’invite pas à défier le premier Macan venu. Il n’y a pas vraiment de mauvaise surprise, même lorsque le rythme augmente. Au contraire, il présente des réactions plutôt prévenantes qui procurent un sentiment de maîtrise assez accessible. On a également constaté qu’en matière de freinage, deux réglages de force sont disponibles dans la pédale. Dans les deux cas, les freins s’avèrent efficaces. Du côté de la recharge, Geely annonce des chiffres un peu décevants. La marque communique sur un passage de 30 à 80%, contre 10 ou 20% habituellement, en près de 30 minutes. Cela mérite également d’être vérifié.

Une concurrence plutôt chinoise

Le Geely E5 exécute sa tâche sans trop en faire, ce qui est presque surprenant compte tenu de son lancement en grande pompe à Paris. En termes de prix, il n’apparaît pas particulièrement bon marché, avec des tarifs allant de 37 990 € pour la petite batterie à 41 990 €. On n’est finalement pas si éloigné des ID.4 ou du Scénic, mais avec des puissances inférieures. La concurrence est en réalité à chercher du côté des autres modèles chinois, comme le Leapmotor C10 ou le MG5 EV.

L’article Essai Geely E5 de 218 ch est apparu en premier sur Le Blog Auto.

❌