That could lead to some interesting paradoxes. A sovereign AI who's tasked itself to make the internet more secure, for example.

Blaster/Sasser but with AI and now multiplatform, more harmful than macro viruses too.

Provably correct programs verified for the hardware they are running on are possible (seL4 is one of a few examples). Their development is very time consuming though. There are caveats, but it's possible, in principle, to fully block certain attack vectors (for example, network access). The attackers then should go a more expensive and dangerous human manipulation or physical access route.

ASI (artificial superintelligence), theoretically, can exploit the ultimate analog nature of digital circuits (something like Plundervolt, but more intricate), but if we'd get to this stage when we need to defend against ASI, we'd have bigger problems.

"We take secure and make it code".

Yeah, that. Manual controls w/ an optional automation, not just, automation with an optional "oh shit" button.

As for the AI's hacking and patching, one could reason since we are dealing with Turing machines that as long as changes to any given codebase/version cease, then all possible holes and patches would be found given enough attacks for that specific release.

Perhaps unfolding almost exactly like Conways 'Game of Life' with an order or two magnitude more rules and states, where the end pattern for any release is 'stability.'

We need a realtime dashboard for this :D

> we take secure and make it code

That’s how we got to abominations like two MFA operations in order to login to a basic web interface/web product, no-one sane would have ever paid for that originally.

And are entirely focused on compliance and checkboxes rather than whether the systems are actually secure.

Poland and Ukraine will hold the candle of civilisation together against all odds