I would also be afraid of this. How valid are the results of the LLMs? I sure there must be quite a few AI found exploits but the severity or legitimacy of all the returned AI evaluations and fixes can’t possibly have a uniform quality.

This seems like an over generalization and less likely than the uneducated hivemind of morons actually being in favor of AI

You know, compiler based AI (not just LLMs) seem like an idea that might be pretty interesting. The option to disable or completely omit them from the toolchain would be mandatory however. But, even then we would have to consider how many pieces of software that then rely on this proverbial black box built into compilers would then get integrated into critical supply chain? We soon would have to start running behavior based “background checks” (just an analogy) on our software much like we do with people due to the unpredictability of such complexity.

Side note, I can’t wait to see just how complex the field of game theory gets with AI. I would love to see any video essays on the topic if they do exist already.

🧐

I am just really happy that he is still around to actually oversee the mixing between such an important part of computing infrastructure and the new radical tool of AI. Had it been 10 years later and we probably would have uber slop linux

Considering that fact that you used the incorrect “Maine” hurts my soul

that’s actually pretty cool

I think this could be updated by a single person for multiple developing situations up to 10 at a single time (which is unlikely for mass reports imo, I have no basis for this assumption however). Rather than needing an AI agent to update automatically

Bandcamp FTW

I can whole heartedly agree. Its almost like when you take the out the scientifically crafted environments that are designed to suck your soul and wallet out of the equation that your relationship with technology just gets better.