3 ms·
The point being that there are always going to be more eyes, and more knowledge of available tools (i.e. including "D, E and F"), and more experience using them
by bluebarbet 6mo ago
The point being that there are always going to be more eyes, and more knowledge of available tools (i.e. including "D, E and F"), and more experience using them, with open source than with a single in-house dev team.
- lelanthran 6mo agoThere's no more "eyes" though, it's all models, and they are all converging pretty damn fast.
- bluebarbet 6mo agoIf true then logically it will be sufficient to run this "master model" once before any code release for the level playing field to be restored. After all, even open-source software is private until it is released.
- lelanthran 6mo ago> If true then logically it will be sufficient to run this "master model" once before any code release for the level playing field to be restored. I'm struggling to see how it is a level playing field: 1. Closed-source: defender runs llms to check the sources for vulns, runs llms on each PR, runs llm on deployment of the compiled output. Attacker runs llm only on compiled output. 2. Open-source: both attacker and defender runs llms on source, on PRs and on compiled output.