Jeez, that's sloppy. My colleague in 2000 discovered you could browse any account on his bank's website by just changing the (sequential!) account IDs in the URL. In a lot of ways we've made great strides in security over the last 25 years... and in many ways, we haven't.
(Upperclassmen often switched their schedules around after the priority enrollment deadline ended)
Not as bullet proof as your approach!
And pretty sure you could insert your student ID into the class that way too :)
Don't get me wrong, I have been been more hands off (though not completely, and very prescriptive) with an SPA side project and it's going great. Claude makes way better looking UIs than my dog ugly developer UIs. But vibing auth? That should seriously count as _legal_ gross negligence.
What's unique about Tea or Base44 (or Replit founder deleting his codebase) is A) the disregard for security best practices and B) the speed at which they both grew and exposed vulnerabilities.
So my question is, how do you see the balance of cybersecurity and AI as everything moves faster than ever before?
Anyone else find all these names really surreal?
(Yeah, Google is kind of a dumb name too, but at least there's a cute story behind it.)
(Okay, I knew Wix had been around for quite some time, but I didn't expect it to be almost as old as YouTube....)
Wix was probably acquiring a growing userbase.
I do think credit is due to the founder, because he was able to single handedly build and market a valuable solution. That said, he also pushed code every day without code reviews. This is how you get technical debt and security vulnerabilities so fast.
The scary and exciting thing is it's still possible today with other needs.
this is israeli on israeli violence
None of these things will ever stop the billionaire gravy train because of something called “Risk Management.” I don’t think our “vibe-coded AI slopware” is an exception.
I wonder if they fixed it manually or used Base44 to fix it
And so as to avoid the reader binning this post into "oh just some human triumphalist AI denier", remember I just said I don't trust individual humans on this point either. Everyone, even experts at coding secure code, should be reviewed by other experts at this point.
I suspect this is going to prove to be something that LLMs can't do reliably, by their architecture. It's going to be a next-generation AI thing, whatever that may prove to be.
We had LLMs in 2024 that you could certainly try vibe coding with, but probably shouldn't have
Just like we have LLMs today that you can certainly try vibe coding with but probably shouldn't
the spectacular overcommenting has been here the whole time
Progress since then has mostly been people and tools catching up to the models, the limit of what the models can code has been pretty stagnant the last couple years
Don't gaslight us about timelines. The boosters have been telling us amateurs can code and we're all worthless for three and a half years now.
When ChatGPT was launched, they said we'd all be on the streets by now.
What I don't understand is the gleeful receipt of that news by some programmers
I know there are very likely programmers that are gleeful about it, but I suspect that many of the gleeful voices we hear online are not programmers and are resentful of that fact
I see this a lot with the type of people who are making AI "artwork". They often lacked the discipline to practice and learn to make art themselves, they seem to bear an underlying resentment to people who do make art. They are the sort of people who think making art is tied to some innate talent and not something that you can practice. Now they are gleeful about AI generators because it lets them create the pictures in their head without the effort of learning a skill, and they are celebrating that they no longer suffer under the tyranny of people who actually enjoy drawing and painting
cash was and is still instant.
When doing large enough transactions that makes cash cumbersome, the slowness is a feature not a bug. We would want multiple reviews and time before it settled.
The value of $100 bill was much higher in 2000 and in 1969 when it became the highest denomination in circulation, so you could transact much higher value with a “wad of cash” than today.
Before 1969 we had bills up to $10,000 for a reason, they served like a credit note/T-Bill from the government, they were no longer needed after banking became robust enough for Cheques/P-Notes etc to replace them.
Paper Cash or Gold/silver coins before them are well understood solved problems, with thousands of years of experiments on size, security ,seigniorage and so on.