Kim_Bruning

"No LLMs for finding bugs" in october 2026 is probably nigh-fatal when it comes to security issues.

While no one is reporting them to you, there will certainly people who will use those LLMS to find those bugs and exploit them.

And the LLMs have gotten pretty good at finding bugs.

You're not wrong. Up till recently I'd have agreed without reservation even.

Except in recent months, I've seen modern agents verify things more rigorously than I do now.

Could be a me thing ofc, but I've found that a human's eyes tend to glaze over while the agent just keeps on checking in more and more detail.

The opposite is more interesting, (and the author points it out too). SOTA agents can help run small experiments and help you do the writeup. Should you publish it? I'd personally want to keep a human at least partially in the loop, or have very solid checkers. But for one off personal research it's at the same point as one off personal code: make sure you have a way to test what's valid; but if you do, it often Just Works(tm) Now.

If we're going for the supermarket comparison, there's actually some restrictions on additives you are allowed to add to food. Things like cocaine or lead paint in your food are not (or no longer) permitted in the modern west.

On phones, disallowing certain forms of predatory behaviour like malvertising and addictive engagement algorithms might be an early quick win. The utility of your phone might actually improve!

I actually sort of agree with this, though it could have been worded more politely (but would it have been as impactful?) . Adults are also not always well served by the current generation of phones either.

I wouldn't ban them entirely, if only because cell phone calls to emergency services have saved many a life.

But the current app ecosystem really isn't there to serve the phone owner, tbqh.

I'd call them retrogressive anti-tech trogolodytes, but then I look at the device on my table and realize I had to look far and wide for a phone I could actually live with.

The mobile phones most people get sold in stores are not actually very nice at all. Advertising, shovelware, malware, and app stores that are not actually very well curated at all.

Pick up the device your random granny gets sold and see how hard you need to resist the urge to fling it out the window. "You actually like it that way?" "Not really. I brought it to the store a month ago, but it's filling up with crap again anyway"

So, it's not the screens actually. It's more like something needs to be fixed about the smart phone ecosystem before the things are really suitable to be used by kids (again).

Never enough tokens!

That's because it was only a quote, I think.

where's the wiki?

When I was still on android, I installed F-Droid to avoid the google app store entirely, since the google app store's vetting is -uh- not very good.

The correct move is to remove the (icon for) the google app store from inexperienced user's phones. (I'm dead serious, and it works)

Unfortunately, that's exactly the move that now gets sabotaged by this google change.

So sure I'll acknowledge the very real risk to users that this is meant to mitigate. It does in fact marginally mitigate the precise narrow risk they state, but introduces a fatal flaw in its place. Probably unwise to let naive users use android at all anymore after this.

Maybe crypto-currencies have a purpose yet

Why is it that many of these games have continuous popups. I get enough approval fatigue during the day!

Presumably this is an A/B test? I don't see how that's remotely sustainable