Linux sound subsystem maintainer Takashi Iwai of SUSE began the Linux 7.4 sound pull request by noting that “the AI flood continues” with there continuing to be a lot of new patches coming as a result of AI/LLM agents devising patches as well as uncovering new kernel bugs.
Takashi went on to explain that it was another busy cycle with changes in the sound subsystem from lots of core code hardening to new platforms and codecs as well. The core ALSA code has been hardened against some race conditions, there’s a buffer leak fix in the compression offload code, race fixes in the JACK code, and other race conditions and more typical C bug fixes. The OSS sequencer emulation code has also been marked as deprecated for Linux 7.4.
On the hardware side, the Linux 7.4 sound updates include support for compressed audio playback on SOF IPC4 with Intel Tigerlake and newer. There is also AMD ACP 7.0/7.F sound IP support with SoundWire and the PDM controller. The new AMD ACP 7.0/7.F IP appears for upcoming Ryzen Zen 6 platforms.
There are also quirks for many different Intel/AMD laptops from the likes of Lenovo, ASUS, HP, AAcer, HONOR, MSI, and others.
New codec drivers are for the ESS ES9039Q2M, Nuvoton NAU83G60 amplifier, Senary SN624x SoundWire SDCA codec.
Also new is the Qualcomm QAIF driver for their Shikra platform.
More details on the many sound changes for Linux 7.4 via this pull ( https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/87ecdgc246.wl-tiwai@suse.de/ ).
This is, to an unbelievabe extent, true of the “Pro-AI” crowd (in particular those selling AI). It’s to the extent that the economy is inevitably fucked once investors start pulling out. AI CEOs lie regularly about the capabilities of their products.
In any case, “pro-AI”/“anti-AI” is a political approach to AI, and politics revolves entirely around opinion. If you truly want “facts” then you have to be willing to accept facts that you disagree with as well.
It is a fact that many bugs have been found with AI, yes. It has provided value to a lot of people.
It is also a fact that for all the good AI has done for people, it is also an unregulated bullshit emitter. Shit, just the other day, I tried asking Kagi Assistant a question, and it gave me an answer in Chinese. My question was in English. It had nothing to do with languages. But if you want numbers, these AI companies publish their benchmarks publicly, so go look at those and consider whether “correct 80% of the time in a benchmark the model was optimized for” is good enough to always trust.
Finally, it is a fact that AI companies have done irreparable harm to the world on an enormous scale, socially, ecologically, politically, and so on.
Don’t worry, that’s why OpenAI and Anthropic are pretending that agents are attacking governments of their own volition. So the industry gets regulated and only “safe American AI companies” like themselves who do whatever the Trump admin says are allowed to be used on American soil. Then they’ll lobby the EU to ban Chinese models too. Especially open weight ones you could run on your own device, those are the devil.
That’s nothing new about AI - the only concerning fact is that AI has attracted such numbers - hopefully most of the “lesser” investors still remember .com and won’t be burned the way they were back then.
I’m a bit “overweighted” in my company stock after 10+ years in the ESPP and being lazy about diversification. At one point within the last year, the company stock was trading at 200, but now it’s down to 150, and I am sad because I missed the opportunity. My buy-in price is roughly equivalent to 120 (depending on how you look at inflationary factors), so I haven’t exactly lost 30% even if it might feel that way.
It’s the same for all volatile investment, it’s not your money until you cash out - don’t make plans like it is. Of course a lot of the world runs opposite to this advice, so we do get “big depression” when a lot of people lose their volatile investments, but it’s important to remember the zero-sum aspects of the game. The money isn’t destroyed, it just changes hands - usually to people who are less free with risky investment of it.
Like a military approach to infant daycare, or a religious approach to farming, or a democratic approach to large bridge engineering?
Just the latest in a long line of such things, going back at least to Gutenberg.
Sounds like a beta-tester problem to me… I started exploring LLM agent coding in mid-late 2025, it created a lot of crap I threw away, it also created some good / useful stuff that has been incorporated into our product. The models are improving, and I am improving in my ability to use them effectively. I may not be as secure in my job as I was 3 years ago, but I may also be more secure in the near future if/when it is recognized that very few CEOs of timber companies have any desire to use the chainsaws themselves, even if a crew of 10 with chainsaws can do the work of 100 men with the previous generation of cutting tools.
No, but people do it all the time for many things they shouldn’t - not just with the latest AI tools, but with all kinds of “mostly reliable” information. In software the past 30 years have seen a development of processes / best practices that help deal with that 80% right problem in the output of human coders. Applying those processes improves the quality of the results, in exchange for additional work. What one guy would build and ship in 1992 now gets built by a team of 5, tested by a team of 10, quality reviewed by a team of 3, regulated by annual audit, approved by a team of 6, shipped by a team of 20, monitored by a team of thousands, corrected as problems are observed and reported a couple of times a year, and we call that state of the art.
How good is good enough is a matter of what your application is. A lot of people have always over-estimated the validity of their sources, and if those people are relying on that source information for important things, that’s where we get regulated industries that help to ensure they don’t (usually) take too much risk for the application, and when they do: you get Elizabeth Holmes documentaries.
Yeah, much like the petroleum industry, the military-industrial complex, nuclear, pesticides, global shipping, introduction of exotic species, air travel, mining, logging, beef farming… everything big enough has caused enormous harm.
Just nitpicking to point out that this is very much not true when it comes to stock markets and the like. If a company is worth $100B and drops to $50B in the course of a week, no one else became $50B richer from that stock, not even collectively. Publicly traded companies usually don’t even have 100% of their stock at the exchange. It could very well be that only 5% of stock was traded throughout that week, meaning somewhere between $2.5B and $5B changed hands (assuming each share was only traded once). Yet $50B is gone from the market because there’s no one left willing to pay more than the valuation. That’s why the market is called volatile: it’s not based on concrete value but purely a measurement of what people are willing to pay for it based on sentiment that might change at any moment.
That’s based on the delusion that the company stock is “worth” anything in the first place. You sell, I buy, money changes hands, commissions are skimmed, taxes are paid, but no money is “destroyed” in the exchange. I sell, you buy, we lose money to the skim, but those skimming have and use that money for their own purposes, the money never goes away.
The delusion that TSLA is “worth” $400 per share, a delusion shared by banks which allow people to borrow against stocks, doesn’t create or destroy money, it just means that people who bought at $40 per share get more money back than they paid, and that people who buy at $400 and sell at $40 get less back than they paid. In theory, shareholders own part of the company, but in practice almost all of that value is market perception, not based on actual assets that can be liquidated and distributed. At least not since retail investors got in the game 25+ years ago.
Bitcoin is the ultimate expression of this: there’s literally nothing backing it up but perception, except in the case of BTC it’s a negative sum game with all the energy and capital investment expended in processing the trades.
Oh, I agree, but you were the one talking about people losing their volatile investments and how you felt sad that your company’s stock had gone down. You weren’t talking about the act of exchanging shares, so I feel you’re moving the goalposts here…
This was my point:
People feel sad because they get attached to some peak value number they see on “their” stock, but stock isn’t money, money isn’t food, etc.
Yeah, I think we’re aligned :)