• remram@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    Probably not. Obfuscation works, and might even depend on remote code being downloaded at either build time or run time.

    There are a lot of heuristics you can use (e.g. disallowing some functions/modules) to check a codebase, but those already exist no AI required. Unless you call static analysis “AI”, who knows.

    • unknowing8343@discuss.tchncs.deOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      But an AI can “realise” the code might be downloading something it doesn’t need to. That’s the point.

      AI is “smart” and understands that you told it that the library was supposed to do something specific, and it can understand that and look for things that seem not correlated to the purpose of the repo.

  • Static_Rocket@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    You would first need to define malicious code within the context of that repo. To some people, telemetry is malicious.

    • unknowing8343@discuss.tchncs.deOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yes, of course, the idea would be something like passing the AI a repo link and a prompt like “this repo is supposed to be used for X, tell me if you find anything weird that doesn’t fit that purpose”.

  • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Huh. That’s actually kind’ve a clever use case. I hadn’t considered that. I presume the main obstacle would be the token limit of whatever LLM that one is using (presuming that it was an LLM that was used). Analyzing an entire codebase, ofc, depending on the project, would likely require an enormous amount of tokens that an LLM wouldn’t be able to handle, or it would just be prohibitively expensive. To be clear, that’s not to say that I know that such an LLM doesn’t exist — one very well could — but if one doesn’t, then that would be rationale that i would currently stand behind.