Users points out in comments how the LLM recommends APT on Fedora which is clearly wrong. I can’t tell if OP is responding with LLM as well–it would be really embarrassing if so.

PS: Debian is really cool btw :)

  • AA5B@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Seems like everyone taking a left turn into crazy ville ……

    This is a good approach.

    1. It’s an mcp server, a “bridge”. A standard way LLMs could talk to your system. It’s not an LLM. It doesnt mandate an LLM. It doesn’t tie you to a specific LLM
    2. It’s optional. Don’t use it, or don’t install it. No harm done. Even if it’s installed and running, if you don’t use an LLM with local access, no harm done.
    3. Even the increased attack surface is not a big deal since it is local, optional, and focuses on reading statuses rather than executing actions
    4. It’s an open standard. If you decide to use it with an LLM but don’t like the results, try a different LLM
    • nupo@quokk.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 hours ago

      This is a community for criticizing LLMs. There is, therefore, no positive interest in a bridge for LLMs. This community is optional. Don’t subscribe, or don’t read it. No harm done.

    • Finalsolo963@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Yeah, most people, myself included, don’t like AI on principle, but there are valid use cases for it, and not having the capability of integrating with AI tools is going to be a dealbreaker for someone.

      That said, I’ve heard MCP is a bit of a shitshow of a standard and is woefully inefficient.