On Sat, 22 Aug 2026 15:08:38 +0100 Joe <[email protected]> wrote: > AI as > used in Open Source products may indeed produce just source code which > could theoretically be audited, but inevitably, it would be audited by > another AI. We all know how many humans could be bothered to audit the > comparatively tiny chunk of extremely critical code which contained > the Heartbleed bug.
I agree that AI expands the scope for bloat, and so for malware. I still think that the problem here is malware, regardless of whether it was produced by AI or natural intelligence (NI). And it is possible to write code that detects malware with no AI element to it. > AI is indeed a tool, but it is a tool which you pick up without > knowing either who manufactured it or what it is capable of doing in > addition to what you expect. No disagreement so far. I simply add that the human being who entered the prompt into the AI is responsible for the resulting code. If there's malware in it, that human being is responsible. -- Does anybody read signatures any more? https://charlescurley.com https://charlescurley.com/blog/
