I don’t think you’re really engaging with what that comment was saying. For example, it said: > Of course you still need that review. But it's extremely helpfu

I don’t think you’re really engaging with what that comment was saying. For example, it said: > Of course you still need that review. But it's extremely helpful, and if that was the only advice you'd get, it'd still be orders of magnitude better than what most devs get. > If you ask ChatGPT to rewrite a secure version, it's doing leagues better than most devs as well. No matter what your opinion of “table stakes” here may be, in practice not enough attention is paid to security by developers, because by far most developers are oblivious to security issues beyond the absolute basics, if that. It’s often left to security teams to find issues from the outside, which is a good security layer to have, but terrible if it’s all you have. As such, the OP article’s advice needs to be qualified with several caveats, including that it used naive prompts which (hopefully) a security product’s GPT feature would try to address; and also that, as the other comment pointed out: > So, you know, as a starter? Rather use ChatGPT than not using anything ...keeping in mind that this applies at nearly every point in the SDLC. E.g., a developer unfamiliar with security issues might use it to improve their work before a security team looks at it.