Technology

34438 readers

226 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.

Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.

Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

MinutePhrase@lemmy.ml

357

"participants who had access to an AI assistant wrote significantly less secure code" and "were also more likely to believe they wrote secure code" - 2023 Stanford University study published at CCS23 (arxiv.org)

submitted 3 days ago by cypherpunks@lemmy.ml to c/technology@lemmy.ml

38 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Sl00k@programming.dev 1 points 1 day ago

which does support the idea that there is a limit to how good they can get.

I absolutely agree, im not necessarily one to say LLMs will become this incredible general intelligence level AIs. I'm really just disagreeing with people's negative sentiment about them becoming worse / scams is not true at the moment.

I doesn't prove it either: as I said, 2 data points aren't enough to derive a curve

Yeah only reason I didn't include more is because it's a pain in the ass pulling together multiple research papers / results over the span of GPT 2, 3, 3.5, 4, 01 etc.