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.
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.
Since you apparently do not know what an AI Winter is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
What a stupid response. If you want a real discussion, maybe accept that the world is not black and white but shades of gray.
In the matter at hand, yes, people can learn, even if they do not do it always and the ones that refuse, you can get rid of. No, the same is not true for LLMs. They cannot learn from what you explain to them. And that makes them unusable for most things that are a tiny bit more advanced.
We have traditional keys locks on the garage and back door. The front and side doors are UWB and they just unlock when I get close. If they stop working, I go get the hidden key and let myself in.
Or just open the garage door assuming power isnt out.
I have carried keys
That should be "by now noticeable".
Typo. "not" -> "now". For some reason my motor-cortex thinks it needs to do that and I do not always catch it.
Because what makes games good is creativity and ideas. LLMs cannot do these. And slop is by not noticeable to most people.
The funny thing is that the AI bros deeply believe they are the future, when it is pretty clear they are not.
Humans learn or get fired. LLMs do not.
To the systems programmer, users and applications serve only to provide a test load.
