4 ms·
Ain't nobody got time for that. LLMs should be capable of analysing code for anything malicious / suspicious.
by Geee 2y ago
Ain't nobody got time for that. LLMs should be capable of analysing code for anything malicious / suspicious.
- dpig_ 2y agoYou're hired!
- yonixw 2y agoSince LLM and keyloggers are turing machines, it won't happen. (Or more precisely: it won't beat the cat and mouse game of obfuscations.)
- kibwen 2y agoUnfortunately, no, because the existence of LLMs that can automatically determine code that is suspicious will be offset by the existence of LLMs that can generate malicious code that bypasses the detection abilities of the aforementioned LLMs.
- CrazyStat 2y agoGenerative Adversarial LLMs, let’s go!
- protosam 2y agoPerhaps we could just call these ALLMs (Adversarial Large Language Models). You’re already dropping the N in GAN, I see no need for the G. As an end result I think someone clever could make a LLaMA pun for the name of a LLaMA based ALLM.
- astromaniak 2y agoNo, they cannot work with large code base, not yet. And have very limited talent for logic and debugging. They may improve at some point, probably will be hooked up with external tools.