So the ”fix” includes a completely new function? In a cryptography implementation?

I feel like the article is giving out very bad advice which is going to end up shooting someone in the foot.

Can you expand on what you find to be 'bad advice'?

The author uses an LLM to find bugs and then throw away the fix and instead write the code he would have written anyway. This seems like a rather conservative application of LLMs. Using the 'shooting someone in the foot' analogy - this article is an illustration of professional and responsible firearm handling.

▲

sciencejerk 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Layman in cryptotography (that's 99% of us at least) may be encouraged to deploy LLM generated crypto implementations, without understanding the crypto

	▲	9dev 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		If they consider doing that, they will without LLMs or with them. Raise your juniors right.

▲

lisbbb 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Honestly, it read more like attention seeking. He "live coded" his work, by which I believe he means he streamed everything he was doing while working. It just seems so much more like a performance and building a brand than anything else. I guess that's why I'm just a nobody.

▲

OneDeuxTriSeiGo 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The article even states that the solution claude proposed wasn't the point. The point was finding the bug.

AI are very capable heuristics tools. Being able to "sniff test" things blind is their specialty.

i.e. Treat them like an extremely capable gas detector that can tell you there is a leak and where in the plumbing it is, not a plumber who can fix the leak for you.

	▲	rizky05 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		[dead]