I'm pretty optimistic that not only does this clean up a lot of vulns in old code, but applying this level of scrutiny becomes a mandatory part of the vibecoding-toolchain.

The biggest issue is legacy systems that are difficult to patch in practice.

▲

qingcharles an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I could see some of these corps now being able to issue more patches for old versions of software if they don't have to redirect their key devs onto prior code (which devs hate). As you say though, in practice it is hard to get those patches onto older devices.

I'm looking at you, Android phone makers with 18 months of updates.

▲

wslh 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I imagine that some levels of patching would be improving as well, even as a separate endeavor. This is not to say that legacy systems could be completely rewritten.

▲

pipo234 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Wait. Wasn't AI supposed to alleviate the burden of legacy code?!

	▲	mlinsey 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		If we have the source and it's easy to test, validate, and deploy an update - AI should make those easier to update. I am thinking of situations where one of those aren't true - where testing a proposed update is expensive or complicated, that are in systems that are hard to physically push updates to (think embedded systems) etc
	▲	buzzerbetrayed 37 minutes ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		If you’re still an AI skeptic at this point, I don’t know what sort of advancement could convince you that this is happening.
	▲	rattlesnakedave 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Legacy code, not the running systems powered by legacy code