| ▲ | dist-epoch 18 hours ago |
| > "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow" Time to update that: "given 1 million tokens context window, all bugs are shallow" |
|
| ▲ | summarity 16 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Already happend: https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.08708 |
|
| ▲ | riffraff 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| ..and three months to review the false positives |
| |
| ▲ | 112233 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | this is always overlooked. AI stories sound like "with right attitude, you too can win 10M $ in lottery, like this man just did" Running LLM on 1000 functions produces 10000 reports (these numbers are accurate because I just generated them) — of course only the lottery winners who pulled the actually correct report from the bag will write an article in Evening Post | | |
| ▲ | red75prime 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | > these numbers are accurate because I just generated them Is it sarcasm, or you really did this? Claude Opus 4.6? |
|
|
|
| ▲ | bigbugbag 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| more like some bugs are shallow and others are pieced together false-positives from an automated tool reliable in its unreliability. |
