Humans are bad at writing secure code, and GNOME developers are no exception. GNOME is primarily written using unsafe programming languages where simple mistakes in our code lead to devastating consequences for our users, and we make these mistakes all the time. No matter how much we try, GNOME developers will fail write secure code...
Isn’t it pretty clear though that for something like a security scan or similar that even the externalities included price far cheaper than the alternative? Whether that’s a good thing or not can still be an open question but I’d be interested in hearing the argument that LLMs are only cost effective for finding vulnerabilities because tokens are subsidized/should cost more for some other reason
I’m not disputing that the prices as is may not reflect the true cost of the tokens, or anything like that. What I’m trying to get at is that I think it’s clear that LLMs are extremely good at this sort of thing, so even if it were true that the price of the tokens were 100x off, for this particular use case it still might be viable given the counterfactual is something like “spend a lot of money paying pentesters”.
I agree with you that 1M on pentester salaries is likely to produce a better result than 100 dollars to whatever your favorite LLM provider is, but what I’d be interested to know is what you think the breakpoint there is and how far off current token prices are from their true cost
Isn’t it pretty clear though that for something like a security scan or similar that even the externalities included price far cheaper than the alternative? Whether that’s a good thing or not can still be an open question but I’d be interested in hearing the argument that LLMs are only cost effective for finding vulnerabilities because tokens are subsidized/should cost more for some other reason
score 1 · canonical
The Enron-like accounting of LLM companies alone should be enough to make these prices unclear. https://news.bloombergtax.com/financial-accounting/big-tech-ai-spree-revives-accounting-devices-that-toppled-enron
One negative externality is the risk of global financial collapse. So much money is tied up in LLMs and they’re so fishy.
score 1 · canonical
I’m not disputing that the prices as is may not reflect the true cost of the tokens, or anything like that. What I’m trying to get at is that I think it’s clear that LLMs are extremely good at this sort of thing, so even if it were true that the price of the tokens were 100x off, for this particular use case it still might be viable given the counterfactual is something like “spend a lot of money paying pentesters”.
I agree with you that 1M on pentester salaries is likely to produce a better result than 100 dollars to whatever your favorite LLM provider is, but what I’d be interested to know is what you think the breakpoint there is and how far off current token prices are from their true cost
score 2 · canonical