They want me to code AI-first, and the amount of hallucinations and weird bugs and inconsistencies that Claude produces is massive.
Lots of code that it pushes would NOT have passed a human/human code review 6 months ago.
It can properly excel in some things while being less than helpful in others. These are computers from the beginning, 1000x rehashed and now with an extra twist.
> I have so many bugs in the Linux kernel that I can’t report because I haven’t validated them yet
You have "so many?" Are they uncountable for some reason? You "haven't validated" them? How long does that take?
> found a total of five Linux vulnerabilities
And how much did it cost you in compute time to find those 5?
These articles are always fantastically light on the details which would make their case for them. Instead it's always breathless prognostication. I'm deeply suspicious of this.
This is the last thing I'd worry about if the bug is serious in any way. You have attackers like nation states that will have huge budgets to rip your software apart with AI and exploit your users.
Also there have been a number of detailed articles about AI security findings recently.
Like what, you expect Nicholas to test each vuln when he has more important work to do (ie his actual job?)
I understand how people use those tools if all they do is build CRUD endpoints and UIs for those endpoints (which is admittedly what most programmers probably do for their job). But for anything that requires any sort of problem solving skills, I don't understand how people use them. I feel like I live in a completely different world from some of the people who push agentic coding.
At my company they set it up that way.