31–40 of 274 posts
No doubt fuzzers (vibecoded or otherwise) can be powerful, but can't you just mark all "/" as potential divide by zero errors? I guess sometimes developers think they "know" some variable won't be zero, but unless it checked explicitly or by the compiler, that shouldn't be trusted.
What we need is a numeric type that cannot be zero.
val (/) : int -> (divisor:int { divisor 0 }) -> intIt’s interesting how AI may both raise and lower the quality of software. It’s very easy to send an AI agent on an open-ended bug hunt, and if it wastes a bunch of time and effort and finds nothing, no big deal. Time is much more important for a human developer with a salary.
Finding the bugs with LLMs is easy. Reviewing the output, cleaning it up, and making sure it doesn't break something else is the hard part.
The only thing left for you to do should be directional decisions. The LLMs should pause and rope you in if the fix involves directional/invariant changes.
It’s interesting how AI may both raise and lower the quality of software. It’s very easy to send an AI agent on an open-ended bug hunt, and if it wastes a bunch of time and effort and finds nothing, no big deal. Time is much more important for a human developer with a salary.
Finding the bugs with LLMs is easy. Reviewing the output, cleaning it up, and making sure it doesn't break something else is the hard part.
We wont stop using AI.
We will use AI to check AI.
Of course this is crazy, but it will also unlock pretty insane scaling and productivity and ultimately we will manage it on either end via requirements and tests.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Finding the bugs with LLMs is easy. Reviewing the output, cleaning it up, and making sure it doesn't break something else is the hard part.
No one can keep up with the volume of code AI produces. We wont stop using AI. We will use AI to check AI. Of course this is crazy, but it will also unlock pretty insane scaling and productivity and ultimately we will manage it on either end via requirements and tests.
What we need is a numeric type that cannot be zero.
It’s interesting how AI may both raise and lower the quality of software. It’s very easy to send an AI agent on an open-ended bug hunt, and if it wastes a bunch of time and effort and finds nothing, no big deal. Time is much more important for a human developer with a salary.
I dislike AI, but if AI finds real bugs then this is in my opinion objectively a positive thing. Of course the question is what constitutes a real bug.
A.I. could also be used to port C/C++ codebases to Rust, which isn't economically feasible at the moment.
It’s interesting how AI may both raise and lower the quality of software. It’s very easy to send an AI agent on an open-ended bug hunt, and if it wastes a bunch of time and effort and finds nothing, no big deal. Time is much more important for a human developer with a salary.
> It’s very easy to send an AI agent on an open-ended bug hunt, and if it wastes a bunch of time and effort and finds nothing, no big deal. No big deal? It’s not like it’s free… tokens cost money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Finding the bugs with LLMs is easy. Reviewing the output, cleaning it up, and making sure it doesn't break something else is the hard part.
No one can keep up with the volume of code AI produces. We wont stop using AI. We will use AI to check AI. Of course this is crazy, but it will also unlock pretty insane scaling and productivity and ultimately we will manage it on either end via requirements and tests.
From that standpoint, it's not a crazy setup security-wise. Maybe still crazy for development.