There are so many regulations EE companies follow and offer that no startup owner or worker could ever deal with. The moment your company shifts to that sort of work, you're automatically not anymore a startup (by definition).

Only if you get super smart robots that can manage a lot of bureaucracy etc. Starting from multicloud/region deployments, local regulations, accounting, taxes, laws, etc. Which is what companies like SAP (but not only them) do basically.

But if that happens we are all in a situation that we don't need companies anymore (the way we know them).

We pollute right outside our block, give credits to companies claiming to be "green" so that we can sell hardware here that is certified, so that we can go to sleep a bit happier as human beings, because we believe we're doing the right thing.

In all this, they make tons of money, make our economy worse than it ever was with no end game.

We're measuring with the wrong targets.

The Green party itself was literally born out of a protest against nuclear reactors in the 70's (Whyl).

CDU tried to slow down the phase out, but when Fukishima happened Merkel thought about staying in power rather than doing the right thing (= not shutting down the power plants).

I don't care about CDU, which as usual never misses a chance to disappoint, but not saying that the phase out was planned and executed by the Greens (and obviously SPD) is just factually wrong, because they initiated it all and implemented it. It wasn't just a draft, "let's see if it gets amended, etc..".

EDIT: I was talking just purely about energy and such reforms. The last 30 years have been ... to say the least... "weird" and short term.

Disabling a technology is a huge mistake, no matter what. No country did it the way it was done in Germany.

So it cannot be that simple (for the reasons you mentioned).

Of course, you can mention all the things they can't do (what if there are stairs, what if the doors are smaller than the robot, etc) but it's mindblowing to see what they can do - and also the chat panel is really nice and makes it more interactive.

This is a choice some countries did in the past due to Chernobyl and Fukushima.

The "fatality" was performed successfully by the Greens.

EU did the Green Deal, though, which is way worse than shutting down a few nuclear reactors that after all didn't produce that much energy anymore and were anyways planned to be shut down.

I don't want to be responsible for a bug in my 8 years old code, which I probably even forgot how it worked etc. I probably don't even work anymore in the same team or on the same service.

Why the hell should I be responsible and how is this sustainable?

I am not even sure if your criticism makes any sense at all anymore nowadays. AI is writing 80% of the code, if not more. It's technically not even your code anymore, although there is your name on the commit. Why should I be responsible for that 3 years from now, when I have again moved team or service etc.

Accountability ok, but you should not retire with your code.

Needless to say, this tool gives scores exactly like the article mentions. Same document, same LLM, same prompt, and different results. It becomes even more ridiculous once you switch to other models, or if you ask a model to review the work of another model.

I am not sure why we insist on making LLMs do the work they are not supposed to do and/or in a way they are not supposed to do.

The worst part is that people are aware of the problem but they just ignore it and consider it as "a reference number, just to have an understanding".

If it were like that, it would be less of a problem. The issue comes from the fact that eventually someone without enough knowledge will trust the output (so X points out of Y is how it is), or someone will stop challenging the output and consider it for their process - like in this unfortunate case of hiring.

At a certain point, people who don't know what they are doing give a tool that doesn't know what its doingto people who don't know what they are doing. A pure mess. And everyone has to comply and applaud. If you go against, you are against AI.

This is what I hate the most about AI. Not the tool, but the shortcuts we're willing to take to justify its existence.

This is the main issue about compliance nowadays. In a fedramp scenario you would very likely have to prove that it's unreachable, and you might even risk compliance over it.

From an attacker perspective they don't know the lib version you're using, but bruteforcing / finding patterns faster than a hacker can? That's what I believe AI can do. This is why for me CVEs are a useless metric, the number and/or criticality. It's a simple security control but they are giving it so much importance. Then you "forget" to secure access to your mcp server and this leaks company info, but hey, zero CVEs, soc2 compliance check check check.

I think it's a good practice to fix as many CVEs as possible, to have a clean/updated codebase, but I am of the opinion that if someone wants, with the tools they have nowadays, they will find a way in. Of course, using a lib that has obvious security issues for input validation, for example, should be a no-go. However, we're reaching a point of ridicule (like you said above, a critical CVE but unreachable).

20 years ago even with automation etc you needed armies of people to make something work. It was more of a transformation of the type of work. Look at the amount of work Amazon as a company has created. It changed how people buy stuff etc, but behind the scenes there is always human workforce, to deliver, to invent the recommendation algorithms, to package the items, etc (although here there is heavy automation).

Now the idea is that we need AI so we can replace humans, so "people can spend more time on what they like to do". Which is what, searching for jobs on LinkedIn?

You need to fix also moderate/low CVEs within a certain time frame.

So CVE count becomes relevant, because the target is zero, although it doesn't mandate "zero CVEs" but that's finally what the desired outcome is.

It's basically unrealistic to ignore that number, because it's unlikely that you have a steady 1000 CVEs (that are being continuously fixed and new ones discovered), but more like "a few exceptions".

I'd like to know how a "critical CVE running in your software for 29 days" is acceptable from a security standpoint. With nowadays tooling, these AI agents can take you down in no time if they target you.

Compliance the way is done today is basically outdated, but everyone has to follow these rules to sell software basically.

In my experience it is becoming basically ridiculous that we disallow compliance based on a number of cve, their level, etc. It's just a checkbox, but it has nothing to do with security.

"Especially now" all these infosec folks "need to get CVEs fixed because compliance/SOC2, etc" and they will be even more up your a*!

Something has to change with how compliance works. It is so outdated and crazy.

I have found out that the mistakes of other models (which I choose first to save money) help me refine the prompt more and more, until I am fed up and pick Opus 4.8 (for example) which magically seems to get it right, but there is a lot of pre-work there...

However, I think actually that while it won't give the results expected (AI agents run the company, build all features, etc.), it will nevertheless become a developer tool like IDEs, something "you have to have".

It's here to stay but probably with more realistic expectations than some CEO/CTO are pushing for (agents for everything, nobody writes 1 LOC, self healing systems, etc).

So the market expectations will be probably resized, but these tools are here to stay. Be it for cybersecurity (from CVEs to cyber warfare) alone, that's already worth all the money they are throwing a it.

The issue is how much of that work is "valuable" in the sense = makes money.

I have both been in projects and seen projects which were canceled once it turned out they didn't make money (bad sales? bad product? bad market fit? a bit of everything?). This you can only afford when you have money to spare (= with debts? high profits...?).

With the interest rates so high, how can a company justify hiring dozens/hundreds of people more? It's a risk, and what I am seeing now is that companies are shrinking left and right to focus on the business that makes money and reduce headcount on what they believe doesn't make money at all, or it's a cost too high for their "long term strategy" or whatever. Right now the only metrics that they are caring about is EBIDTA. They don't even care anymore about ARR, they are becoming irrelevant as long as they stay within a range (we want 20% increase, but we're ok with 5%).

The AI will replace everything and everyone is working out pretty well for Anthropic/OpenAI, though.