upvote
LLMs are good at producing what they/the public know.

In this case:

  LLMs know the USB Spec very well.

  LLMs know how to read raw packet dumps.

  LLMs know how to convert a packet dump to USB spec

  LLMs know how to write code to generate USB packets from the spec.
LLMs are also VERY good at transliteration, i.e., converting known-good Python to Rust.

Basically, If you have a well-documented problem, the LLM is a shortcut to learning it yourself. LLMs fail when you have a novel or poorly documented problem. They also fail when you provide the LLM with terrible context or too much context.

reply
Don't sell in-context learning short. Right now I'm waiting on Claude to wrap up the latest of a half-dozen extensive changes to XML files for a fairly-obscure (and obsolete) closed-source electronics CAD program. I am pretty sure it doesn't know anything about these files besides what's in the XML .DTD file (which I also gave it.)

This is a very novel, reasonably-poorly-documented problem, and so far it has batted 1.000.

reply
IMO it's because they don't get burnt out by a lack of results.

After 5-6 consecutive approaches fail, I need a reason to think the next one might work out to stay motivated.

Claude will keep burning credits trying new approaches until something sticks. That's a huge advantage in a field where most of the things you try don't go anywhere.

reply
As an analogy, you're not going to cut your lawn by hand at the speed and slow pace that the smallest and weakest lawn mowing robot does. You're not going to cut your lawn with kitchen scissors. But the LLM will, metaphorically, be perfectly happy to cut your lawn with kitchen scissors as long as it has enough time/tokens to keep cranking away at it.
reply
I had a discussion about this with a friend recently. I was using an LLM with a serial console that it wrote to allow us to share a connection to a Z80 computer running CP/M. I was having trouble with the assembler, it wouldn’t assemble in user 1 of a particular disk, so I asked the LLM for help. It debugged ASM.COM and the BDOS, walked through the source compared to memory dumps, basically banging its head on the wall for an hour or more, until it finally figured out and verified that my disk had a bad block. I never would have put in that much effort to find the root cause of the problem.
reply
LLMs don't get as mentally exhausted by trying repeated tedious things as a human will. Same general idea as, imagine if you as a human typing into a keyboard had to manually fuzz test software in a pre-LLM era vs. how fuzz testing is actually done.
reply
LLMs seem to be trained to work very well against a goal, especially one it can verify against. I guess because it can easily know if it passed or failed, va other tasks where good/bad output is subjective
reply
That's actually pretty simple.

Reverse engineering isn't so much hard as it is exhausting.

LLMs simply don't care about exhaustion.

reply
It's LLMs' generalist skills. I think reverse engineering is usually hard when you're in an unfamiliar domain. Eg I've never programmed a videogame or windows application but I'm trying to crack one. On the other hand if you know the domain, and know what the programmers' intentions must be in any given block of code, it's often straightforward. There are no unfamiliar domains for LLMs, including it seems proprietary software.
reply
To some degree. But esp for drivers, you still need to know when they go wrong, and steer them right, or your code will either just not work or be an unmaintainable, not-upstreamable mess.
reply
I don't think they're any more skilled at it than someone who knows how to reverse engineer stuff... But it is definitely a place where AI is amazing because reverse engineering is usually extremely time consuming and tedious. AI doesn't care about that.

It also has the benefit that it doesn't usually matter too much if it gets minor details wrong. It's definitely one of the areas - like hacking - where it's a) tedious and b) insensitive to mistakes where AI absolutely shines.

reply
My experience is that they're better than me at a lot of the process, so probably worse than someone who's a full time reverse engineer but as good as or better than most. They'll definitely get some small details wrong that would derail the entire thing, so having some skills that are pretty much "This smells wrong" helps a lot, but I think for many scenarios they'll unblock someone who has little RE experience.
reply
Also verifiable. LLMs shine when they can know when the task is completed correctly. Otherwise they will finish and hand over something that's wrong.
reply