Yes, and it apparently burns lots of tokens. But what I've heard is that the outcomes are drastically less expensive than hand-reversing was, when you account for labor costs.
Of course LLMs see a lot more source-assembly pairs than even skilled reverse engineers, so this makes sense. Any area where you can get unlimited training data is one we expect to see top-tier performance from LLMs.
(also, hi Thomas!)
Burning tokens by asking the LLM to compile, disassemble, compare assembly, recompile, repeat seems very wasteful and inefficient to me.
Can you expand on this? Is that existing tooling for deminification?
Seems like a waste of money; wouldn't it be better to extract the AST deterministically, write it out and only then ask an LLM to change those auto-generated symbol names with meaningful names?