11–20 of 39 posts
We can save that dialogue for finding bugs in widely used projects.
Edit: Something I tried to reply to a now-dead top level comment here: Whoever claims that new accounts alone is a signal for submission-boosting comments etc. needs to update their heuristics.
sometimes i feel mythos is just that a myth
The cool thing about LLMs is that once a capability is "good enough" you can always "chain" them together for better overall results. On the client side this means "write an API that does x y z" -> "analyse this API for security concerns" -> "PoC for each finding from this report" -> "fix this code according to these verified claims". On the "server side" (i.e. training) you can use the current gen models to improve…
More like, give $$$ pass or not.
So throwing his own, apparently poorly written, creation under the bus will get him applause and promotions by the AI lunatics.
It is a currently popular strategy among AI boosters.
I found, in my rather recent experience with Go, that using anything other than zero for invalid, default or "sentinel" values is a source of potential problems due to the lack of real constructors.
The upside of the lack of real constructors is less incidental complexity which every object having a constructor written which then has to be read and maintained.
Another option of course is to write constructors - there's nothing to stop you doing so in go and using those when creating objects (e.g. foo.New() whenever you want one of these things), but it'd be a convention rather than something required.
… running thru my head. All the bugs they found…
He describes himself as "Software engineer. Writing code prompts at Google". So throwing his own, apparently poorly written, creation under the bus will get him applause and promotions by the AI lunatics. It is a currently popular strategy among AI boosters.
He describes himself as "Software engineer. Writing code prompts at Google". So throwing his own, apparently poorly written, creation under the bus will get him applause and promotions by the AI lunatics. It is a currently popular strategy among AI boosters.
You think he cynically decided to boost his career by writing a detailed description of the exploits found in his own software.
Is there no room in your model of the world for someone to figure out something interesting using AI tools and then write about it just because they like sharing interesting information?