Thread

1. romaniitedomum · 1790914941 · focus · HN ↗

   An interesting observation that I encountered somewhere, I forget where, is that AIs when writing code introduce vulnerabilities at a rate similar to humans writing the same code. So we're looking at a massively accelerated volume of security vulnerabilities for the foreseeable future thanks to AI-assisted security research, and we can expect no reduction in new vulnerabilities from the AIs writing the code.

   1. baq · 1790915357 · focus · HN ↗

      It doesn’t follow. Everyone sane has the models review the choose the models wrote. Reminder these are the models which found the Jacobian and Navier-Stokes counterexamples; they’ll find holes in their own slop, too.

      1. layer8 · 1790923560 · focus · HN ↗

         These counterexamples are comparatively straightforward because the input domain is well-defined and simply-structured, and a counterexample is trivial to verify. The same is not true for arbitrary vulnerabilities.

         1. baq · 1790925833 · focus · HN ↗

            Computers are finite. Inputs are well defined and so is their structure (ignore for a second the fact that it’s all physics behind the scenes). Secure code is a conjecture. A counterexample for secure code processing bits is an exploit.

            Also I find calling millennium problem solutions ‘straightforward’ baffling, to be polite.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.