> The most fascinating part of this wave of LLM reverse engineering is seeing how many weird and poor choices were lying in plain sight.

I think what's interesting is that for decades one group of devs has been pushing for higher quality and security while other groups have been pushing for "good enough" or "MVP"[0]. Clearly the group that rushed won.

But in some weird way we're coming to the day of reckoning. I'm sure we'll always have missed bugs but with a lot of what we're seeing it more seems like these were avoidable problems. Code issues I can easily imagine at least one person on the team said "this isn't acceptable, we need to correct it" and them getting overruled. I'm sure each and every one of you has seen, if not experienced, this.

It'll be interesting to see if that continues. I suspect companies will still rush but from my experience even the best models happily produce shoddy code. And there's a feedback loop, the model's performance is influenced by the code's quality. So it's easy to degrade and get into a bad feedback loop. But I think people still value speed over quality, even in this world where Microsoft shit the bed

[0] in quotes because the entire conversation is essentially about what is actually good enough and what actually is the minimum viable product.