Linux kernel memory-management code reviewer steps down due to influx of AI slop patches — volume of submissions coupled with low manpower forces the step back
I’ll start by saying I’m ethically against LLMs, but I see this as not an LLM thing but a corporate thing.
A large part of those unfound security flaws is companies really don’t prioritize revisiting old code. They don’t consider refactoring for stability a worthwhile endeavor at all. So much so that I’ve seen managers insist the proof of concept code get shipped. LLMs have kind of helped raise awareness of that, but not really because it just gets called a security flaw. If companies didn’t chase maximum profit I guarantee a large chunk of what we’re seeing with people patching right and left wouldn’t be a thing.
LLMs have only less to this vulnerability avalanche because people are firing the things off left and right on old code. The solution isn’t to keep doing that, it’s to shift culturally to not shipping until things are properly developed.
Absolutely agree. I used to be a Mac guy and I remember when Mac OS X (as it was called at the time) 10.5, Leopard came out. It had a lot of problems and Apple acknowledged it by following up with Mac OS X 10.6, Snow Leopard. The pitch was that they weren’t really going to ship new features but rather to refine 10.5 and make it suck less. I think it was pretty widely recognized as a successful effort. It’s boring stuff for the tech press and media at large, but Jobs was able to sell it. I wish more companies would do this, but it doesn’t make line go up in the same way “…Now, with AI✨™️” does
I’ll start by saying I’m ethically against LLMs, but I see this as not an LLM thing but a corporate thing.
A large part of those unfound security flaws is companies really don’t prioritize revisiting old code. They don’t consider refactoring for stability a worthwhile endeavor at all. So much so that I’ve seen managers insist the proof of concept code get shipped. LLMs have kind of helped raise awareness of that, but not really because it just gets called a security flaw. If companies didn’t chase maximum profit I guarantee a large chunk of what we’re seeing with people patching right and left wouldn’t be a thing.
LLMs have only less to this vulnerability avalanche because people are firing the things off left and right on old code. The solution isn’t to keep doing that, it’s to shift culturally to not shipping until things are properly developed.
Absolutely agree. I used to be a Mac guy and I remember when Mac OS X (as it was called at the time) 10.5, Leopard came out. It had a lot of problems and Apple acknowledged it by following up with Mac OS X 10.6, Snow Leopard. The pitch was that they weren’t really going to ship new features but rather to refine 10.5 and make it suck less. I think it was pretty widely recognized as a successful effort. It’s boring stuff for the tech press and media at large, but Jobs was able to sell it. I wish more companies would do this, but it doesn’t make line go up in the same way “…Now, with AI✨™️” does