Comment by mrmattyboy

6 days ago

> effectively turning the developer's most trusted assistant into an unwitting accomplice

"Most trusted assistant" - that made me chuckle. The assistant that hallucinates packages, avoides null-pointer checks and forgets details that I've asked it.. yes, my most trusted assistant :D :D

Well, "trusted" in the strict CompSec sense: "a trusted system is one whose failure would break a security policy (if a policy exists that the system is trusted to enforce)".

I don't even trust myself, why would anyone trust a tool? This is important because not trusting myself means I will set up loads of static tools - including security scanners, which Microsoft and Github are also actively promoting people use - that should also scan AI generated code for vulnerabilities.

These tools should definitely flag up the non-explicit use of hidden characters, amongst other things.

I wonder which understands the effect of null-pointer checks in a compiled C program better: the state-of-the-art generative model or the median C programmer.

  • Given that the generative model was trained on the knowledge of the median C programmer (aka The Internet), probably the programmer as most of them do not tend to hallucinate or make up facts.

This kind of nonsense prose has "AI" written all over it. In either case, be it if your writing was AI generated/edited or if you put so little thought into it, it reads as such, doesn't show give its author any favor.