• shirro@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    63
    ·
    17 days ago

    Using LLMs to analyze code for problems makes a lot of sense. It is just an extension of the rule based analysis we already do. It is very much a better hammer rather than a replacement of labour/thinking/taste. The programming languages we use are often difficult for humans to reason about reliably and hide a lot of errors. Our programming languages still suck (yes even Rust). If one day clang of gcc ships with a local LLM to lint code for security problems I would probably run it occasionally even on my hobby code despite being an AI hater.

    If people are identifying errors using LLMs and fixing them by hand I am fine with that. It seems like a good use of the technology. If they start vibe coding drivers I want it declared so I can disable them or move to BSD.

    • The_Decryptor@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      15 days ago

      If one day clang of gcc ships with a local LLM to lint code for security problems I would probably run it occasionally even on my hobby code despite being an AI hater.

      Compilers already have deterministic linters built in, devs often turn them off anyway.

      Quite a lot of the bugs being found in existing codebases show up as soon as you re-enable them.

    • lemmydividebyzero@reddthat.com
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      16 days ago

      I agree that finding bugs is probably one of the most useful usages of LLMs ever.

      But avoiding anything written with AI will let you few options in the future.