6 ms·

Also sounds incredibly compute intensive.

• matherial 14d ago
  Setting a swarm of agents loose for hours to look for software vulnerabilities is far more compute-expensive than fuzzing. The industry has never thrown this kind of compute resources at pure fuzzing, in part because you can't get much VC money for that.
  • lukeschlather 14d ago
    This sounds like a swarm of agents with particular prompting that happens to guide the LLMs toward doing a lot of fuzzing, so it's not either/or; you're getting all the compute requirements of both.
  • rcxdude 14d ago
    You also quickly get into diminishing returns with fuzzing. Generally a bug is either going to be found relatively quickly with a given fuzzing approach or it's going to be nearly impossible to find. You're usually better coming up with more intelligent fuzzing approaches than you are just dumping compute into it.
• zamadatix 14d ago
  Fuzzing or having the LLM sort through where might be most useful to fuzz & sorting the results? Neither seem particularly compute intensive to me, fuzzing is a pretty standard step and having the LLM read through to find the most interesting areas to fuzz sounds a lot more efficient than leaving the whole task to the LLM.
• syou1024 14d ago
  [dead]