As LLM outputs are probabilistic, Each iteration needs some kind of
test to check against for the correctness of the generated code.
In this case, the only test I have is 'compiles and boots correctly'
but code with extensive tests will benefit the most, and likely will
avoid those kind of mistakes.

El mar, 11 jun 2024 a las 15:37, Kirill A. Korinsky
(<kirill@korins.ky>) escribió:
>
> On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 16:52:02 +0100,
> Alfredo Ortega <ortegaalfredo@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Another thing that you can deduce is that the system that writes
> > patches, can also find vulnerabilities.
> > I already reported some and don't have time to report them all. But I
> > imagine I'm not the only one working on these systems.
> >
>
> Here you are the operator which verify the output of this tools.
>
> This can be nice and useful tool, like valgrind or static analyzer.
>
> But it won't be the silver bullet.
>
> Ok, it migth be the silver biullet which writes the code, but you should
> accept extreamly bad quality of that code at the end.
>
> Sometimes people follows the tools suggestion without thinking that they
> doing, and it may lead to disaster.
>
> Good example of blind trust to the tool which lead to kind of disaster is
> Debian where guys had fixed OpenSSL by valgrind warning. Here random article
> about that story: https://blogs.fsfe.org/tonnerre/archives/24
>
>
> --
> wbr, Kirill