openmic.social is an uncensored community. You may encounter strong language, controversial opinions, and mature or NSFW material. You must be 18+ to browse. Illegal content is prohibited and removed on sight — please report it. By continuing, you accept that you may see content you personally disagree with.
i know the author personally. We went to the same university for IT security. His skills are undeniable. Ignoring a legitimately working tool that finds legitimate security problems is just asking for trouble. For all its flaws there are some legitimate uses of LLMs and this is one of them.
maintainers of critical Software can’t afford to be that ignorant.
4.6 Opus was a huge jump from earlier models and the first that was actually useful for things like this from my experience (and 4.7 is significantly worse for some reason).
I have made many anti-LLM posts here and I remain pretty negative on them, but they have absolutely become useful. Part of the problem is the truth is really somewhere between the insane promises and the dismissals.
My problems are many fold though, from being propped up by insane subsidies, the massive power usage to the thing I most care about: taking more power from the masses. The more useful they get, the more power gets concentrated to those able to afford the data centers.
Computers used to be at least somewhat democratizing, sure there were some things like weather modeling that an ordinary person couldn’t do, but a random person on thier computer could put something together to change the world.
What happens when the breakthroughs are available only for the wealthiest? Regular folks can buy tokens at a reasonable price today, but running cutting edge models on consumer hardware isn’t really feasible. We’ve ceded too much control.
That’s promoted by AI haters. The copyright people want to privatize human knowledge and charge rent for it. The latest lawsuit against Meta even includes Elsevier, ffs.
Then there’s all the busy-bodies who want everything surveilled “for the children”. Cause people might be chatting about self-harm, or generate nudes, or some other “harmful” content.
Yes. For example the random people who founded these AI start-ups.
Right now, the world of technology is uniquely malleable in a way it has not been since the dotcom crash. That’s what motivates most of the hate. It’s people who feel that they will lose out; eg the news media that already suffers from the rise of the internet.
Yes. I hesitated to post this because I understand that many here would prefer not to know. But, at least, people need a chance to learn the facts and make their own decisions. The amount of anti-AI disinformation is crazy.
I’m anti LLM for a lot of applications, for a lot of reasons, but there are obviously things that it is useful for, and I think this is one of them. If a cybersecurity specialist reviews the flaws flagged by the LLM, confirms they are legitimate, and uses that data to fix them, I don’t see an issue.