Musk is doing his usual "our product is shit but all the better ones are fake and ours will be the greatest when it's finished!"

Musk's robots are crap and his AI is mediocre. He's nowhere near having AI operate his robots, which is why he has humans remotely tele-operating them.

It's so fucking embarrassing. Not that he bullshits everyone this way, but that people take him seriously.

A lot of these patches are for security flaws that LLMs found, so can't be simply ignored because of the source. If one LLM found it, another can.

It's just a difficult period we have to get through. Then it will be down to checking new code for flaws with AI, because it get deployed.

Most countries follow a similar path with EV adoption. Starts slow, people are worried about range and charge times and scare articles about the batteries only lasting a couple of years. Then they see people driving them and that they are actually superior in many ways, and decide to get one themselves. At the same time, infrastructure improves.

China is ahead because they started early, and had a lot of commercial adopters. Busses went EV a decade ago, then taxis.

It's the same with Linux. One of the reasons why it's finally gaining traction on the desktop is because instead of searching outdated Reddit threads and being berated by neckbeards who think you are an idiot for not doing it the way they do, you just ask AI and get a helpful response.

The issue is usually not knowing where to start looking. There is some goal you want to achieve, but you aren't sure what technology to use, what the terminology is, where to look in the manual. You could research it all, but these days it's easier to just ask AI, which will search sites like Stack Exchange for you, and get you on the right path.

Obviously you don't take the AI's word for it, but it gets you started with your own research.

The same can be said about banks holding your real money. Or more accurately, a database entry tracking your balance, because it's not like they have a physical pile of cash in a vault with your name on it.

The issue is regulation. The bank has to have enough insurance to cover any losses, and has to reimburse you. In many countries there is a limit on the maximum liability.

Or all software. Nobody starts from first principles and a formal description of the CPU's instruction set.

And there you are wrong. There is a bit more to making a game than creating a demonstrator. The software also has to survive in the real world. And LLMs cannot give you that.

Well, economics graduates like to use completely bad metrics as this one. For example, the Ad industry only measures whether you remember a brand. Whether you are in the "I will never buy from these fuckers again" corner does not get counted. Dumb people using dumb metrics.
Nothing new: "A good decision is based on insight and not on numbers" -- Plato.

Who is "Bellular"?

If you try to find the flaws as a defender, you have already lost. What you must do is prevent them or at least prevent exploitability. Test & fix as a paradigm is pretty much over in the security space. Sadly, that is all most coders can do.

Sounds like that is going to be much more expensive than using competent humans. And investing in secure design and implementation with resilience.

That will not help. Testing cannot fix this problem. As soon as the attacker tests just a bit differently, they will find vulnerabilities that the defenders did not find. The only solution is resilient security and that requires experts doing the software. No, slop will not work.

And fail. This is not about ROI. You seem to have missed that the attacker in the story was exceptionally incompetent. These moron-level attackers use LLMs to do things they cannot. Should get them to low expert level. And that is enough to break into many systems, because IT security sucks almost universally.

Only if you are fool enough to think LLMs are capable of finding all or most vulnerabilities. They are not. The state-backdoors (if they are there) will remain.

Could still be a good thing, as apparently totally incompetent attackers can now get into systems that uses to require experts to break in. The only defense is secure software engineering, and that requires actually competent engineers with respective skills. No, LLMs will not be able to do it.