[Geee]

Ain't nobody got time for that. LLMs should be capable of analysing code for anything malicious / suspicious.

[kibwen]

Unfortunately, no, because the existence of LLMs that can automatically determine code that is suspicious will be offset by the existence of LLMs that can generate malicious code that bypasses the detection abilities of the aforementioned LLMs.

[CrazyStat]

Generative Adversarial LLMs, let’s go!

[protosam]

Perhaps we could just call these ALLMs (Adversarial Large Language Models). You’re already dropping the N in GAN, I see no need for the G.

As an end result I think someone clever could make a LLaMA pun for the name of a LLaMA based ALLM.

[astromaniak]

No, they cannot work with large code base, not yet. And have very limited talent for logic and debugging. They may improve at some point, probably will be hooked up with external tools.

[yonixw]

Since LLM and keyloggers are turing machines, it won't happen. (Or more precisely: it won't beat the cat and mouse game of obfuscations.)

[dpig_]

You're hired!