Yes to both questions about people, but both are engineers. I do not think technical illiteracy is getting larger. It was always very large, with brief periods where more people had basic knowledge about some specific tech as the alternative was simply no or no meaningful access to that technology.
It is bot historically and currently true that most people are incompetent and suck at risk management.
Of course that's never really been the case, but now that any bozo with $200 in their pocket can just pay an AI to find every possible security hole and report back, it's REALLY not the case.
By far not "every possible", but enough to massively increase the pool of attackers with a newly discovered vulnerability. And since most software is missing redundant security (because most software does not qualify as a product of professional engineering) this is far too easy. All engineering disciplines had to eventually accept that the thing that protects you is redundancy, because mistakes cannot be brough down enough. IT is not there at all, but it will not have a choice now.
There is. You read the standard, you implement the standard. And then you do an once-over over all time zones each year to check which standard they are following and if and when they are switching. Probably less than one competent engineer. But apparently, either MS does not have competent engineers or does not want to spend money on this. And hence they have a ton of egg on their faces. Again.
So? My comment was specifically about LLMs.
And that is how you do it if you have a clue. Not even expensive, just requires understanding.
It seems MS is regressing and getting worse and worse.
Apparently you did not understand what I wrote. Perfect code is NOT the goal. Redundant security is.
Yes. While I am still not impressed with the actual capabilities, the kicker at this time is the financial angle, in several dimensions. One is token cost. Another is that apparently nobody finds real revenue increases from LLM use. And even another, a bit more distant, is the cost for users to be able to switch providers (which is a regulatory requirement in some industries, at least in Europe).
On the plus-side, people that attack computer systems will likely be able to run their own local models as the task is very specialized and that will (hopefully) drag the software industry (kicking and screaming) to what all well established industries do: Redundancy to ensure properties even when something goes wrong.
That is why I am currently using it for that purpose.
May I suggest a few more names?
"Breadless bakeries" - They surely generate enough heat
"Sound distribution centers" - Apparently, these are really loud
"Landscape heaters" - See above
"Silicon stress test facilities" - Nothing wrong with testing stuff, right?
Now everyone can create.
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.
Then again, that is kinda like citing spam statistics are proof that AI is the future of email.
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.
Never ask two questions in a business letter. The reply will discuss the one you are least interested, and say nothing about the other.
