4 ms·

> The idea that software has gotten so complex that a machine can evaluate code paths better than a human, seems to bristle the fur of many Lol! What about fuz

> The idea that software has gotten so complex that a machine can evaluate code paths better than a human, seems to bristle the fur of many Lol! What about fuzzers, linters, typecheckers and formal tooling? There’s plenty of machine code evaluators that people do use because it’s better than relying on human skills. The issue is the actual report and the lack of information.

levkk 2mo ago
There is a difference between using an electric drill and having a robot assemble the entire car.
QuercusMax 2mo ago
Or even just compilers / assemblers. They'll find all kinds of errors humans routinely overlook!
keeda 2mo ago
> What about fuzzers, linters, typecheckers and formal tooling? Pretty sure Chrome has been using all of those forever, along with some of the best security researchers in the world, yet AI (which is what GP really means by “machine” here) is finding way more bugs. I think GP’s point is that AI makes some people uncomfortable because it operates more like a human than a special purpose tool. As for lack of information, I’m curious what you’d be interested in seeing. More information about the kinds of bugs it found perhaps?
- skydhash 2mo ago
  Here is a nice report about tooling https://cacm.acm.org/research/lessons-from-building-static-analysis-tools-at-google/ https://cacm.acm.org/research/lessons-from-building-static-a... This is the kind of report that you can reflect upon and learn from instead of feeling like you’ve just read a marketing piece.
  - keeda 2mo ago
    Thanks! I do believe I’ve read that piece (I worked in a similar area in a past job) it indeed is a good one. However I do think a big portion of the articles on blog.google are semi-marketing pieces, e.g. check this list: https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=blog.google https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=blog.google

levkk 2mo ago

There is a difference between using an electric drill and having a robot assemble the entire car.

QuercusMax 2mo ago

Or even just compilers / assemblers. They'll find all kinds of errors humans routinely overlook!

keeda 2mo ago

> What about fuzzers, linters, typecheckers and formal tooling? Pretty sure Chrome has been using all of those forever, along with some of the best security researchers in the world, yet AI (which is what GP really means by “machine” here) is finding way more bugs. I think GP’s point is that AI makes some people uncomfortable because it operates more like a human than a special purpose tool. As for lack of information, I’m curious what you’d be interested in seeing. More information about the kinds of bugs it found perhaps?

skydhash 2mo ago
Here is a nice report about tooling https://cacm.acm.org/research/lessons-from-building-static-analysis-tools-at-google/ https://cacm.acm.org/research/lessons-from-building-static-a... This is the kind of report that you can reflect upon and learn from instead of feeling like you’ve just read a marketing piece.
- keeda 2mo ago
  Thanks! I do believe I’ve read that piece (I worked in a similar area in a past job) it indeed is a good one. However I do think a big portion of the articles on blog.google are semi-marketing pieces, e.g. check this list: https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=blog.google https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=blog.google