The software industry should be ashamed by the number of exploits that ai can find in software. It’s really an embarrassment.

The software has to be built better.

▲

doginasuit 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I'm curious if you are a coder and have used an LLM to review your code. It is like something like shining a black light around a hotel room, and that seems to be the case even for highly regarded software.

It is really easy to have tunnel vision while coding. LLMs have a working memory with a capacity an order of magnitude greater than ours. I wouldn't trust an LLM to write the code, but at this point it is malpractice not to use one for review.

▲

pylua 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I have been, yes. For a field that has engineering in the name there sure has been a lot of critical mistakes.

You have to call a spade a spade — the profession accepts this sort of tradeoff in the name of speed and cost.

A well designed system would have never allowed those mistakes to occur. I feel like using an llm to catch these sorts of things is just because it wasn’t built right in the first place.

I think ai systems will be able to build systems of abstraction that are formally verified, and we won’t be needed(eventually).

Right now it’s being used as a bandaid.

▲

pastel8739 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Formally verified against what spec?

	▲	naiveter 39 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		The one liner leadership keeps asking for.

▲

marcus_holmes 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Every single software engineer in the industry agrees with you.

Every single project manager disagrees.

Don't blame the engineers, we were specifically instructed and paid to build things fast and cheap, and every time we argued for good we were shouted down.

	▲	pylua 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		True. It has been a race to the bottom for lowest cost as long as the quality meets the bare minimum. LLMs can go through and find all the nails sticking out pretty easily.