• I would not be surprized if Anthropic would actually hire a real developer to make these PRs as a marketing stunt

    • Well, if the model detected an issue, and a human tested it to make sure it was real and then fixed it, I think that’s an acceptable use of AI tools.

  • (In case someone has been living under a rock in the last 48 hours. Anthropic’s new model “Mythos” has been finding a lot of new vulnerabilities. This is about patching one.)

  • ai tools can detect potential vulnerabilities and suggest fixes. You can still go in by hand and verify the problem carefully apply a fix.

  • Hold on, wasn’t one of the “features” of the “leaked” Assumed Intelligence source code the “human”-like version?

  • Maybe he meant code quality was so good its like a human wrote it.

    After all if the code is good and follow all best practices of the project, why reject it just because it was an AI who wrote it. That’s racism against machines.

    • It’s not possible to be racist toward inanimate objects. Computers are not a race. LLMs are not people.

    • If it’s racism, it’s also slavery. Can’t have one without the other here.

      • I am sure that discussion will be taken a lot more seriously in the coming years

    • One big reason people outright reject AI generated code is that it shifts the work from author to the reviewer. AI makes it easier to make low effort commits that look good on surface, but are very flawed. So far LLMs don’t match the wisdom of an experienced software dev.