You must log in or # to comment.
ai tools can detect potential vulnerabilities and suggest fixes. You can still go in by hand and verify the problem carefully apply a fix.
AI is actually SUPER good at this and is one of the few places I think AI should be used (as one of many tools, ignoring the awful environmental impacts of AI and assuming an on-prem model). AI is also good at detecting code performance issues.
With that said, all of the fix recommendations should be fixed by hand.
It’s OK to hate AI slop and recognize the immediate threat to cyber security it brings. At least they are trying to mitigate it. There’s been no similar actions from other frontier models. They are deliberately helping open source projects with little funding to keep pace.
Anthropic right now are the good people.
That probably won’t last. But out of a bad bunch they’re the least bad.
the good people.
You are limiting your own intelligence by thinking companies can be described in those words.
They are not good. They are profit-seeking. Profit seeking doesn’t necessarily mean evil, but it can never mean good. A non-profit who’s goal is to improve their community around them, a co-op who’s goal is to treat their workers with respect etc etc can all be described as ‘good’ to varying degrees, but no for-profit entity, especially a publicly traded one, can ever be described as ‘good’
Hence their point about being the best of a bad bunch. Remember the people making decisions are people. A corporation has no soul and only seeks profit. People work for them and can make good decisions and be good people whomever they work for.
There were good people that worked for the nazis. Unless you think the cleaner, for instance of the Nazi headquarters cleaned as a way to speak evil.
However. I take your point. I just think that’s not what is the point of the discussion here and is no different to both sides being bad on politics. It lacks nuance.
I would not be surprized if Anthropic would actually hire a real developer to make these PRs as a marketing stunt
Well, if the model detected an issue, and a human tested it to make sure it was real and then fixed it, I think that’s an acceptable use of AI tools.
Maybe he meant code quality was so good its like a human wrote it.
After all if the code is good and follow all best practices of the project, why reject it just because it was an AI who wrote it. That’s racism against machines.
It’s not possible to be racist toward inanimate objects. Computers are not a race. LLMs are not people.
That was rude against my wife-chatbot. Apologize to her, here: https://…
More like http://localhost:8000/wifebot
It’s possible to leverage the same human quality called “hate,” which underpins racism. It’s the same ugly human behavior. You can call it whatever you want, it’s still ugly
We have a word for the concept you’re thinking of. It’s called bigotry. Racism is race-based bigotry. Anti-AI bigotry is reasonable and awesome, and is just called bigotry.
