@hamburgheftig@feddit.org to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish • 4 days agoFed up with vibe coders, dev sneaks data-nuking prompt injection into their code - Ars Technicaarstechnica.comexternal-linkmessage-square162fedilinkarrow-up1651arrow-down111cross-posted to: newsprogramming@programming.dev
arrow-up1640arrow-down1external-linkFed up with vibe coders, dev sneaks data-nuking prompt injection into their code - Ars Technicaarstechnica.com@hamburgheftig@feddit.org to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish • 4 days agomessage-square162fedilinkcross-posted to: newsprogramming@programming.dev
minus-square@mabeledo@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglish0•3 days agoI know it’s code. You are missing the point. Any library with a critical user mass is auditable, because a fraction of those users would take the time to do so, whereas all LLM generated variations of the same library cannot and will never be auditable.
minus-square@Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglish1•3 days agoThat’s literally not what you said, you said “LLM code can not be auditable” which is demonstrably wrong. Go ahead and move the goal posts though.
minus-square@mabeledo@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglish0•edit-22 days agoYou missed the context. I don’t blame you. Tell me how in hell are you going to audit every single variation of code generated by a LLM, that’s equivalent to a whole library. I’ll wait.
I know it’s code. You are missing the point.
Any library with a critical user mass is auditable, because a fraction of those users would take the time to do so, whereas all LLM generated variations of the same library cannot and will never be auditable.
That’s literally not what you said, you said “LLM code can not be auditable” which is demonstrably wrong.
Go ahead and move the goal posts though.
You missed the context. I don’t blame you.
Tell me how in hell are you going to audit every single variation of code generated by a LLM, that’s equivalent to a whole library. I’ll wait.