the fallacy is not recognizing ai is interpolating the human body of work. all the people decrying ai slop: this is our sythesis. ai is not a separate thing from human work. whwt the author is really saying is "I am tired of individuals no longer having the leverage they once did."
I'm interested in the program he would have used to typeset his presentation in the 1960s. Also not at all an attack but he seems to be either nervous public speaker or to have a well mananged speech impediment. Just an observation not a critique. It is fascinating IBM woukd have chosen such 'shy' person to make the presentation.
I'm not a graphic arts expert, but the lettering and charts in this presentation appear to be done by hand.
And since this was an internal IBM presentation for salesmen and engineers, the priority likely wouldn't've been on using a polished presenter, just making the information available.
It is not mechanically printed, those materials where hand drafted. I got some very old teachers in college during the 90s, and their hand-drawn flipcharts looked exactly like this.
Sometimes companies used to hire artists to finish this kind of material, but usually engineers at that time were pretty much capable of drafting this kind of presentation on paper, just with rulers, compasses, and the ocasional template rule.
White collar professions used to be way more embodied in the real physic world. Kids were trained on caligraphy and basic drafting techniques since elementary school.
Some numbers, however shaky, that AI-written code is secure.
It could become that way, but thus far no evidence has been presented for it. The best we have right now is that you can spend $20 in tokens to write a patch and then $20K to find a vulnerability in it. First, that's not measuring the same thing. Second, it's not very impressive.
50 years is a long, long time, so I wouldn't bet against it. But I agree that we don't have evidence for it yet.
> What are the numbers on how secure is human written code? We should have something to compare AI numbers to.
That's kind of what the article is about? Mythos is finding lots of security bugs in lots of human-written code. They can now compute some sort of baseline estimate of security bugs per N lines of human-written code or whatever. (Restricted to security bugs that the AI is currently capable of finding, but whatever.) Even before Mythos et al, we can look at historical security bug rates. We do have numbers for estimating the security of human written code.
> It seems more likely to me that you could spend $20 to find a vulnerability in a piece of software that costed you $20k in human labor.
Ok, but that's not what is being discussed in this subthread? The topic is whether or not we have data suggesting that AI-written code is or can be secure, and thus whether insecure human code is fated to replaced with secure AI code. I claim we do not have that data. Therefore, we don't have evidence to think that for the sake of security we should replace all human code with AI code, vs whether AI code is worse for security and so we should replace AI code with human code (that presumably has been vetted with AI, since we do have evidence for its effectiveness.)
If I were to guess, I would probably think that today's AIs are trained solely on mountains of insecure human code and so will probably produce more of the same. Tomorrow's AIs will have the benefit of being trained on human and AI code that has had a large swathe of vulnerabilities purged from it, and so they'll have a much better chance at writing secure code, at least.
It depends a lot on whether the failure modes of AI code generation lend themselves to exploitation as security vulnerabilities. (And whether they will continue to do so.)
> > It seems more likely to me that you could spend $20 to find a vulnerability in a piece of software that costed you $20k in human labor.
> The topic is whether or not we have data suggesting that AI-written code is or can be secure
I think my point is related because if the AI is great at finding vulnerabilities then it should be possible just tell AI to write the code and another AI to look for vulnerabilities and secure them. All for $20 + $20 instead of 20k.
Unless AI is somehow uncharacteristically weak in finding vulnerabilities in AI produced code. Which can probably be tested.
Unlike fusion, driverless cars are already a reality, there are just have a few kinks to work out. LLMs are also pretty close to AGI already. 50 years are more than enough to figure it out.
Oh there's plenty of evidence. Because a lot of these people have been committing to repos in public for over a decade. Wouldn't take much to show the world just how fallible human coders really are.
Using code from these repositories should be considered the same as licking toilet seats at highway rest stops. There’s something wrong with you if you do it.
Mention "consciousness" get a slew of incoherent responses. There is no "hard problem." the burden of proof has always been on those who claim there is. whats it like is what it is what it is is what it is like. the question has the innanity of a circle asking "why do I have an interior?"
The Yudkowskian 'Bayesians' are a scifi cult. Intelligence as it exists in nature is neither arteficial nor general nor 'super.' All human technology is natural. It certainly is not supernatural.
OP here. I solved all my problems but the point is in OpenBSD and in my experience linux these would not be problems in a default install. Any now that it is meeting my needs happy with netbsd.
reply