A better example would be to use LLMs to generate passwords or secret keys. Then even if it looks random to human, the inherent bias would make it a security disaster.
You can still obfuscate JS heavily and make a VM that executes also obfuscated code calling arbitrary browser APIs. At least In WASM everything is sandboxed so the attack surface is smaller.
After the incident with Tailwind CSS, I decided not to make this open source. Sponsorship has been zero since COVID, so it’s genuinely hard for open-source developers to sustain their work
Sorry don't take this personally but isn't this made with LLMs? Isn't the "incident with Tailwind" the problem that devs no longer support the project because they use it through LLMs often without knowing?
I mean if i understand you are saying you won't release open source code because LLMs would feed/stole it. I get that position. But you are already feeding from the devs that were exploited. Seems a bit hypocritical to use LLMs if you have that stance.
> I read Effective Modern C++ years ago and was confused exactly like what you describe.
It's been a while since I read it, but if I recall correctly the book focused on special member functions and when the compiler actually stepped in for the developer, not the actual concept of move semantics. Those are different things.
Special member functions is a development experience issue, and covers aspects such as "can I get the compiler going to generate code for me". If you write code that tells the compiler it should not generate move constructors for you, often it ends up generating copy constructors. That's it.
> It only supports a subset of Javascript close to ES5 [...]
I have not read the code of the solver, but solving YouTube's JS challenge is so demanding that the team behind yt-dlp ditched their JS emulator written in Python.
reply