Key take-away from this article is that LLMs don't make the best judgement, but rather the average judgement. We spent months worrying about LLMs training on our code, but it turns out our code was cr*p all along :D
On Wednesday, June 24, 2026 at 9:01:25 AM UTC Cheikh Seck wrote: > On Wednesday, June 24, 2026 at 8:57:20 AM UTC Cheikh Seck wrote: > >> I had Lite Agent (https://liteagent.cloud) compare Github commits before >> 2024 ( approximate time of pre-agentic AI adoption). The findings were a >> drastic increase in LoC. >> >> On Wednesday, June 24, 2026 at 8:50:02 AM UTC Stephen Illingworth wrote: >> >>> Where does the 60-80% figure come from? >>> On Wednesday, 24 June 2026 at 09:45:30 UTC+1 Cheikh Seck wrote: >>> >>>> Hi gophers, >>>> >>>> I've been thinking about how AI code generation changes our security >>>> assumptions. >>>> >>>> In 2026, a typical Go service has 60-80% AI-generated code. The >>>> dependency tree isn't curated by humans anymore - it's assembled by LLMs >>>> pulling from outdated training data. >>>> >>>> This means we need new security standards. Manual review isn't enough >>>> when you didn't write the imports. >>>> >>>> I just published a practical walkthrough showing how to implement one: >>>> automated security scanning with Trivy that blocks CVEs on every PR. Takes >>>> 5 minutes to set up. >>>> >>>> Article: https://medium.com/p/d91605771b04 >>>> >>>> Would love feedback from the community on: >>>> 1. Is this the right approach for AI-era security? >>>> 2. What other standards do we need to establish? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Cheikh >>> >>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/6a781916-5f5a-40e3-bda7-4c85f0a72aebn%40googlegroups.com.
