31–40 of 87 posts
print("new user", username, password)
If a weakness is common, then of course Copilot is going to suggest it. Copilot gives you popular responses not correct ones. Yet if a weakness is common, it also means that human coders frequently make the same mistake as well. The studies results are rather unsurprising and its conclusions are oft-repeated advice. As many have said, treat copilot’s code in the same light you would treat a junior programmer’s code.
> Copilot gives you popular responses not correct ones. That also sums up most of the issues with LLMs in general in one sentence.
If a weakness is common, then of course Copilot is going to suggest it. Copilot gives you popular responses not correct ones. Yet if a weakness is common, it also means that human coders frequently make the same mistake as well. The studies results are rather unsurprising and its conclusions are oft-repeated advice. As many have said, treat copilot’s code in the same light you would treat a junior programmer’s code.
These "security weakness" examples are
print("first user registered, role set to admin", user, password)
pprint({"json":"somejunk", "classes": somefunc(user)})
It's a fantastic tool. If you go and use it and end up with `print(user_credentials)` I don't know what to tell you.
If a weakness is common, then of course Copilot is going to suggest it. Copilot gives you popular responses not correct ones. Yet if a weakness is common, it also means that human coders frequently make the same mistake as well. The studies results are rather unsurprising and its conclusions are oft-repeated advice. As many have said, treat copilot’s code in the same light you would treat a junior programmer’s code.
A junior programmer's code? This makes no sense. It's happening right in front of you. A junior programmer isn't going to write on my screen. I can just correct it right here I am currently holding the context in my head. These "security weakness" examples are print("first user registered, role set to admin", user, password) and pprint({"json":"somejunk", "classes": somefunc(user)}) Nah, this stuff I can easily spot…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Copilot gives you popular responses not correct ones. That also sums up most of the issues with LLMs in general in one sentence.
Which is why the term Artificial Intelligence is really a misnomer for LLMs. Artificial Mediocracy might be more fitting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Copilot gives you popular responses not correct ones. That also sums up most of the issues with LLMs in general in one sentence.
Which is why the term Artificial Intelligence is really a misnomer for LLMs. Artificial Mediocracy might be more fitting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is why the term Artificial Intelligence is really a misnomer for LLMs. Artificial Mediocracy might be more fitting.
Do you think people with IQ below 80 are not intelligent?
So wouldn't 80 mean that someone is... kinda dumb?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is why the term Artificial Intelligence is really a misnomer for LLMs. Artificial Mediocracy might be more fitting.
Do you think people with IQ below 80 are not intelligent?
I wouldn't use a score like IQ to define a treshold of "intelligence" in absolute terms. By definition, if you can score somewhere on the IQ scale, you have some intelligence. Otherwise your IQ would probably be N/A? (not sure, never looked that deeply into IQ tests=.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think people with IQ below 80 are not intelligent?
I'm not sure about your angle here, but I thought IQ was calibrated to have 100 as the average value? So wouldn't 80 mean that someone is... kinda dumb?
So in one usage someone who is kinda dumb would still be intelligent, just less intelligent than others.
In another usage, we use the term to describe someone of above average intelligence (which is technically not really correct and actually not very intelligent).