we need to develop the techniques (and then the tooling) so that the source code is sufficient to reconstruct the documentation. LLMs are fit for this use. I

we need to develop the techniques (and then the tooling) so that the source code is sufficient to reconstruct the documentation. LLMs are fit for this use. I think they could get trained on assembly language. further, I think that at this point, the whole x86 spec is as impossible to analyze 'rationally' as any natural language. funny that it was created by dozens upon dozens of engineers in a rigorous and formal way; and the result is now mega complex. but I digress... my point is to reconsider x86 spec as a 'natural' language which is the common "tongue" between software and PC hardware. but by this point there's no expectation that a modern intel cpu is implementing the instructions in the way they were first created. it may well be emulating the x86 spec to the best of its capacity (another computer program "written" in 'microcode', a x86 virtual machine); so when thinking about x86 assembly spec as a language, the software computer is talking to the hardware computer; and if they agree the computer works. (so the socket and motherboard's buses can be understood as network devices xP ) finally, if I can come up with this (LLMs trained on assembly) so can any security researcher from any advanced academy or corporation.... meaning security researches NOT using LLMs like this ones I imagined are not doing their jobs correctly.