Say what you like about the random word sequence generation machine, but it does actually seem to be usefully good at generating sequences of random words that correspond to problems in your software. And if you're inclined to write the code by hand, it's probably going to be easier to fix up your existing shit than rewrite it all. (And if you're going to use AI, then you're hardly going to listen to me.)
The purpose of this is to address a practice common in certain open source ideologies of banning all AI contributions - including vulnerability reports. Basically they are choosing to ignore security vulnerabilities because they had to read too much slop last year.
> Basically they are choosing to ignore security vulnerabilities because they had to read too much slop last year.
That's not only an uncharitable take, it's also wrong.
If 999 out of every 1000 "reports" from a specific source is wrong, then it is not irrational to disregard all 1000, especially when they can be generated faster than you can read.
I mean, it's just probabilities, right? If you're okay trusting output from an LLM, you should be okay with using statistics in general as a source for informing decision-making.
Everything coming from GNOME about software quality should be taken with a Strategic Petroleum Reserve of salt.
While other projects rewrite things in memory-safe ways, GNOME's response is to ask a chatbox if there are any memory vulnerabilities.
Say what you like about the random word sequence generation machine, but it does actually seem to be usefully good at generating sequences of random words that correspond to problems in your software. And if you're inclined to write the code by hand, it's probably going to be easier to fix up your existing shit than rewrite it all. (And if you're going to use AI, then you're hardly going to listen to me.)
The purpose of this is to address a practice common in certain open source ideologies of banning all AI contributions - including vulnerability reports. Basically they are choosing to ignore security vulnerabilities because they had to read too much slop last year.
> Basically they are choosing to ignore security vulnerabilities because they had to read too much slop last year.
That's not only an uncharitable take, it's also wrong.
If 999 out of every 1000 "reports" from a specific source is wrong, then it is not irrational to disregard all 1000, especially when they can be generated faster than you can read.
I mean, it's just probabilities, right? If you're okay trusting output from an LLM, you should be okay with using statistics in general as a source for informing decision-making.