Dario Amodei would not be happy about this.. listen, you're not the choosen one! You can't find vulnerabilities, even in your own code, you must politely apply for permission, but if it's not granted, you must accept your fate and stop developing software.

This is the only way forward, open weight models must be illegal. Thanks for understanding.

This describes my life as an open source maintainer at the moment!

In the first 10 years of the rclone project we received about 20 security disclosures through GitHub. We had to deal with over 40 in the last month! That has taken a huge amount of my time, even using AI tools to triage and come up with fixes for review.

The hit rate for those security disclosures is pretty good - about 75% of them have a nugget of something which needs looking at. The configurations for rclone have got increasingly unlikely so I'm hoping they will dry up eventually.

I was considering just merging the fixes straight to master just to make my life easier rather than holding a dozen independent security fixes on branches and merging them at the point release and hoping not to have too many conflicts to fix up. I've decided to stick with the process for the moment.

GitHub assigns CVEs for the advisories. Before the AI apocalypse they took 2-3 days for an assignment but now it they are running at 3-4 weeks so I have to send the point releases out with CVE-PENDING in the changelog which isn't ideal.

Not sure what the solution is, but it is definitely a problem for us.

I don't think this is new with LLMs (finding an exploit based on a few words offhand has always been a fun part of exploit development), but it's scaled and democratized to mass exploitation of low value targets. Backing exploit PoCs out of patches, commit messages, and random overheard or over-read sentences is a practice as old as vulnerability research. The difference with LLMs is that an explosion in actors "skilled enough" (human or not) has enabled sloppy / low-skill "exploit the whole Internet" actors in a way they weren't previously enabled.

I do agree with the author's ideas, though; most of these are things that should have been done much sooner, and I suppose it's good in a sense that there is a forcing factor now.

It's easier to find bugs, fix them, yet there's less will than ever. My bosses just want speed and will give me a 30 minute lecture on why I don't need to solve a bug that Claude solved in 5 minutes, I've verified, and it's already in an open PR. All the while we're pushing out bugs faster and faster.

No matter how good AI gets at fixing bugs we'll never fix them when there's no will to fix things. Software will never be good if there's no will to make good software. The problem has always been about will. To many better products. It's insane that in a time where we can do better on speed and quality we still choose speed and tell ourselves it's velocity

No mention of memory safe languages? Sure, it does not help existing projects, and sure, of course you can still have logic bugs (or memory bugs using escape hatches like unsafe). But they do help significantly in reducing the number of exploitable bugs.