The best fully-human writers of the next generation will be those who are very conscientious at grammar class and master all the rules, because by breaking them, they'll be able to push their prose to the most remote and unlikely locales in the geodesics of LLM-next-token-prediction-probability space. Such places where the Machines deign not trudge.

But here's one thing I'm wondering: with LLMs being now super-human when it comes to algorithms and computer code, wouldn't it be possible to set up a "project super-harness" for a TLS client library for (not necessarily mbedTLS main branch!!), put up a constant "pool budget" between various individuals and organizations, and let the LLMs care for ongoing maintenance?

> HTTP is an old and quirky protocol with a lot of surface open for attackers that are rarely useful nowadays

HTTP 1.x is that, perhaps. But I was in the trenches when HTTP/2 came out, brand new and running on binary. It was so new that there were very few implementations around, and my team had to code one. The people who worked on the spec had a lot of learning to apply from HTTP 1.1. That resulted in many nice bits in HTTP/2, but HTTP/2 also had serious issues at a spec level. Which is my way of saying that "modern" doesn't necessarily mean "bug free".

The most noble, selfless reason I could think of is "so that they try again". I say, the "most noble" because people have plenty of more selfish reasons: "they'll make me feel better", "to make me a better person", "to keep up with the expectations of my friends and family", "they'll give me comfort when I'm old and frail", "they will care for me". And then no-reasons such as "it's the way things are", and "everybody does it", and "god wants it".

But I prefer mine: "so that they try again". Try what? To right the wrongs, to succeed where we failed. But that is a mirror: if my kids inherit the world of my failures, can I look back into my soul and say that I tried hard enough? When the day they lose something precious comes, and they understand this world is mostly darkness, will I be able to look them in the eyes and say that I tried hard enough to beget the light they crave?

The algorithm is: if the threat model is valid, there are vulnerabilities and you either have some software everybody knows about or a gang of hackers specifically targeting you, you should patch.

The part of the industry that profits from security theater will want you to patch no matter what, even if your business goes down in flames due to downtimes and new bugs introduced by patched components. They won't remind you to assess the threat model first.

It's just hard to make predictions about post-scarcity. At present, we are all running against a clock and that shapes the way we see the world. We are running out of time and about to hit the wall of frailty and death. And, every human being that has ever existed went or has been going through the same. So, our vast spirituality is 95% about dealing with that fact. But we are at a moment in our civilization development in which we actually can take that wall down; it's just such a shame that 95% of our vast spirituality is at best non-cooperative, and at worst very angry and self-defeating.

[^1] Though, to be honest, x86 has great automatic SIMD tools so I never had to try too hard.