[mrmattyboy]

> 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

[bastardoperator]

My favorite is when it hallucinates documentation and api endpoints.

[Joker_vD]

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)".

[gyesxnuibh]

Well my most trusted assistant would be the kernel by that definition

[Cthulhu_]

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.

[jeffbee]

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.

[chrisandchris]

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.

[pona-a]

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.

[mrmattyboy]

Are you talking about my comment or the article? :eyes: