| ▲ | adrianN 2 hours ago |
| There is a finite number of rces that LLMs can find. We‘re in for a rough couple of years but on the other side of the transition we‘ll have more secure software stacks. I’d rather that everyone got the full capabilities and we’d weed out the bugs quickly than restricting LLMs for all but three letter agencies. |
|
| ▲ | e28eta an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| What makes you think RCEs are being found & fixed at a rate that’s faster than they’re being introduced? I could see it going either way. |
| |
| ▲ | user43928 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Why would the model not find the vulnerability during implementation or testing before release? If it requires a lot of compute and trying, this is something that could be provided for common software. | | |
| ▲ | wood_spirit an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Sad that this could well be that the path to OpenAI and Anthropic profitability of this arms race between defending LLM white hatting a company’s website and the black hat LLMs attacking it? So the whole thing is forcing the good guys to outspend on tokens to preemptively defend against the risk of the bad guys outspending them on tokens, rather than buying tokens to actually add features to the product etc. So are they creating a market for the solution by helping create the problem? A kind of rent-seeking AI security-industrial complex!! | | |
| ▲ | agileAlligator 36 minutes ago | parent [-] | | The only thing AI has changed is that it has dropped both: the cost of attack and the cost of defense. Nothing in the game has materially changed; the game has just sped up. | | |
| |
| ▲ | xboxnolifes an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Because it's far cheaper to to not spend the tokens finding the vulnerabilities, and software is now being created and released magnitudes faster than ever before. I could see the huge software companies maybe having fewer vulnerabilities, but I expect to see so much more in the smaller side of things. | |
| ▲ | techpression 29 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Because people need to spend time and money on that, which they won’t.
The implementation is cheap, the review and follow-up is not (speaking from a pure LLM only workflow).
My ratio is around 1:2 currently, so twice as much time spent fixing vs building. |
| |
| ▲ | nmlt 28 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Those companies that produce more RCEs than they close will sink and those that don’t won’t. |
|
|
| ▲ | maaaaattttt an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This assumes we don't create other bugs/vulnerabilities while fixing the existing ones. |
|
| ▲ | dtech an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| only if unreviewed LLM code - as is becoming increasingly the standard - isn't introducing new RCEs constantly |
|
| ▲ | csomar an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| We’ll have the same level of security as before; it’s just that, without LLM help, hackers won’t be as effective as before. So the bar is raised. |
