• Hoxton@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    3 days ago

    Here’s an example of the absolute pearls of wisdom Andy is dropping over on Reddit

    • Steve@communick.news
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      3 days ago

      All of that is reasonable, until the faster part.

      AI tools have been surprisingly good at finding code vulnerabilities. But that should only be an add-on to all the human review. It shouldn’t save any time. If anything it should make things take longer, with the AI finding things people didn’t, so there’s more patching that needs to be done.

      • Trilogy3452@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        3 days ago

        Sometimes it’s patches, but sometimes with enough bugs you’re looking at a redesign (which takes even longer than patching)

      • Hoxton@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 days ago

        I generally agree with you here, particularly regarding the benefits of finding stuff that a manual review may miss.

        The approach I take issue with is the haphazard rush to add AI as part of the development process, almost purely for the sake of it, not on a case by case basis where it is needed (and can be fully tested)