Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

You did this with an AI and you do not understand what you're doing here

hackerone.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 571 posts

Re: You did this with an AI and you do not understand what you're doing here

#201

Post by [deleted] »

mewpmewp2 wrote: post #199
rvnx wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

* Trying 20.54.123.42:443... * Connected to api.openai.azure.com (20.54.123.42) port 443 (#0) * ALPN, offering h2 * ALPN, offering http/1.1 * successfully set certificate verify locations: * CAfile: /etc/ssl/certs/ca-certificates.crt * TLSv1.3 (OUT), TLS handshake, Client hello (1): * TLSv1.3 (IN), TLS handshake, Server hello (2): * TLSv1.3 (IN), TLS handshake, Encrypted Extensions (8): * TLSv1.3 (IN), TLS handshake,…

Fascinating trace — what you’ve essentially demonstrated here is not just a failed TLS handshake culminating in a 500, but the perfect allegory for our entire discourse. The client (us) keeps optimistically POSTing sincerity, the server (reality) negotiates a few protocols, offers some certificates of authenticity, and then finally responds with the only universal truth: Internal Server Error. If helpful, I can follo…

[deleted]

Re: You did this with an AI and you do not understand what you're doing here

#202

Post by dolmen »

dansmith1919 wrote: post #10

Crazy how he doubled down by just pasting badger's answer into Chat and submitting the (hilariously obvious AI) reply: > Thanks for the quick review. You’re right — my attached PoC does not exercise libcurl and therefore does not demonstrate a cURL bug. I retract the cookie overflow claim and apologize for the noise. Please close this report as invalid. If helpful, I can follow up separately with a minimal C reproduc…

I think we are now beyond just copy-pasting. I guess we are in the era where this shit is full automated.

Re: You did this with an AI and you do not understand what you're doing here

#203

Post by anonymars »

cap11235 wrote: post #163
unwind wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TIL that some people spell cooperate with an "ö". As a Swedish native it really breaks my reading of an English word, but apparently it's supposed to indicate that you should pronounce each "o" separately. Language is fun.

As a native English speaker, it also breaks my reading of "cooperate". Never seen it before. I think parent is just annoyingly eccentric for the sake of it.

Most commonly seen in naïve, and the New Yorker

Re: You did this with an AI and you do not understand what you're doing here

#204

Post by jennyholzer »

joz1-k wrote: post #23

We will see more problems related to the attitude: "I know AI, and therefore I'm smarter than trilobites who coded this before the AI boom." I suppose there's a reason why kids are usually banned from using calculators during their first years of school when they're learning basic math.

I know React, and therefore I'm smarter than trilobites who coded this before the Web App boom

Re: You did this with an AI and you do not understand what you're doing here

#205

Post by jnwatson »

Ndymium wrote: post #81
chinathrow wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah but a dash, at least on my keyboard is a '-', not the one quoted above.

En and em dashes are easily accessible on both my laptop's and phone's keyboard layouts and I like using them, just like putting the ö in coöperate. It's sad if this now makes me look like a robot and I have to use the wrong dashes to be more "human".

Em dashes are widely used. The diaeresis is only used in The New Yorker and those that copied their style.

Re: You did this with an AI and you do not understand what you're doing here

#206

Post by barnabee »

tdeck wrote: post #160

This kind of thing isn't new. When I maintained a Google owned project on GitHub in the pre-LLM era someone submitted a slop PR "fixing" some tests, seemingly generated with some kind of static analysis tool. The description was clearly copy-pasted as well.

Yep. We also saw people run any fuzzing, scanning, etc. tool they could get their hands on and pretty much just paste the results in a bug report email, well before AI was a thing.

Completely useless 99% of the time but that didn’t stop a good number of them following up asking for money, sometimes quite aggressively.

Re: You did this with an AI and you do not understand what you're doing here

#207

Post by dolmen »

cornholio wrote: post #136
zaphodias wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think there are humans involved. I've now seen countless PRs to some repos I maintain that claim to be fixing non-existent bugs, or just fixing typos. One that I got recently didn't even correctly balanced the parenthesis in the code, ugh. I call this technique: "sprAI and prAI".

We will quickly evolve a social contract that AI are not allowed to directly contact humans and waste their time with input that was not reviewed by other humans, and any transgression should by swiftly penalized. It's essentially spam, automatically generated content that is profitable in large volume because it offsets the real cost to the victims, by wasting their limited attention span. If you wantme to read your…

See Ghostty's social contract about AI use: https://github.com/ghostty-org/ghostty/blob/main/HACKING.md#...

Re: You did this with an AI and you do not understand what you're doing here

#209

Post by alexisread »

> The reporter was banned and now it looks like he has removed his account.

I'm wondering (sadly) if this is a kind of defense-prodding phishing similar to the XZ utils hack, curl is a pretty fundamental utility.

Similar to 419 scams, it tests the gullibility, response time/workload of the team, etc.

We have an AI DDoS problem here, which may need a completely new pathway for PRs or something. Maybe Nostr based so PRs can be validated in a WOT?

Re: You did this with an AI and you do not understand what you're doing here

#210

Post by brap »

ale wrote: post #32

It's kind of depressing to read Daniel's article[1] on this issue given the rising "popularity" of these lazy attempts at cash grabbing. I hope they manage to combat the AI slop in a way that does not involve fighting fire with fire though. [1] https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2025/07/14/death-by-a-thousand-s...

why don’t they just limit the report to 100 chars or something? “Here’s the input, here’s the output, here’s why it sucks”. Easy to make a maybe/no decision at a glance.
Post reply on HN