jfk13
Joined 9 years ago
Karma
7,203
Submissions
1,941
Member since
Mar 3
Joined 9 years ago
†Is "intelligence" even the right word here? I don't know. Much depends on how you define it, I guess, combined with the unknowability of the pigeon's own mental processes.
(It's Tom Lehrer, for any who don't recognize it.)
(So does `font-feature-settings: "dlig" 1`, which is the low-level equivalent; the site includes both.)
(Kids these days with StackExchange and Copilot have no idea.... now get off my lawn!)
I've been dealing with a bunch of AI-generated (or at least -assisted) vulnerability reports lately. In many cases the reports include proposed patches to fix the issues.
It's been..... interesting. In many cases, the analysis provided in the report has been accurate and helpful. In some cases, the proposed patches have also been good, and we've accepted them with minimal or no changes.
In other cases, despite finding a valid issue, and even providing a good analysis of the problem, the AI tool's suggested patch has been, quite simply, wrong.
Careful review from somebody who really _understands_ the code -- and the wider context in which it is operating -- is still absolutely necessary. That's not always going to happen in an hour.