> The idea that software has gotten so complex that a machine can evaluate code paths better than a human, seems to bristle the fur of many

Lol! What about fuzzers, linters, typecheckers and formal tooling? There’s plenty of machine code evaluators that people do use because it’s better than relying on human skills.

The issue is the actual report and the lack of information.

▲

keeda 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> What about fuzzers, linters, typecheckers and formal tooling?

Pretty sure Chrome has been using all of those forever, along with some of the best security researchers in the world, yet AI (which is what GP really means by “machine” here) is finding way more bugs. I think GP’s point is that AI makes some people uncomfortable because it operates more like a human than a special purpose tool.

As for lack of information, I’m curious what you’d be interested in seeing. More information about the kinds of bugs it found perhaps?

	▲	skydhash an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Here is a nice report about tooling https://cacm.acm.org/research/lessons-from-building-static-a... This is the kind of report that you can reflect upon and learn from instead of feeling like you’ve just read a marketing piece.

▲

levkk 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There is a difference between using an electric drill and having a robot assemble the entire car.

▲

QuercusMax 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Or even just compilers / assemblers. They'll find all kinds of errors humans routinely overlook!