4 ms·
Ignoring LLMs, the status quo for defense is that you're pwnable from the silliest of mistakes, and the status quo for offense is that even one lucky shot lets
by hansvm 5mo ago
Ignoring LLMs, the status quo for defense is that you're pwnable from the silliest of mistakes, and the status quo for offense is that even one lucky shot lets you in. Suppose you brought in 1000x more people to projects on both sides; you'd expect a much higher chance of at least one failure for the defenders and at least one success for the attackers.
LLMs don't have the same dynamics, but the same underlying idea is worth bearing in mind. Above and beyond that, yes, defense is harder for LLMs than offense. They struggle mightily when pulling together too many threads, and some projects are just too big. On the defensive side, exploits are usually very tiny and asymmetrically acceleratable via LLMs.
- leereeves 5mo ago> defense is harder for LLMs than offense. They struggle mightily when pulling together too many threads, and some projects are just too big. Defense doesn't have to be part of code gen. Any automated attacker (like LLMs) could be used for defense simply by finding exploits, then fixing them by whatever means. People choose not to invest in that.