you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 9 points 7 hours ago (3 children)

Using LLMs for security auditing? Ok, but people are mad that LLM-assisted code, tons of it, is now getting into the kernel and Linus is no longer slamming the brakes...

The only other option is to use something inconvenient like OpenBSD, constantly audited for three decades, LLMs could find only very few obscure bugs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

    OpenBSD, constantly audited for three decades

    Oh buddy... Did you not hear that not only did OpenBSD start using AI for audits but that it actually found a handful of serious issues that decades of human audits have missed?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 5 hours ago (1 child)

    There is a difference between an AI doing a security review (which they have become quite accomplished) and generating code that gets committed into the codebase.

    Again, how does one verify that the code it has generated isn’t some verbatim chunk of copyrighted code that it happened to be trained on, and it turned out to be the best fit? There’s no guarantee that a model will not do this, even if instructed.

    Also, content generated by AI models has already been deemed uncopyrightable, and this includes code. So are some larrtsmof the Linux kernel now able to be copied freely without GPL restrictions? How can you license code or executables compiled from said code if you do not hold the copyright on it?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment