Live data from Hacker News

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

hackerone.com

241–250 of 571 posts

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

#241
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The '—' gave it away. No one types this character on purpose.

I do all the time, but might have to stop. Same with `…`.

I dislike the ellipsis character on its own merits, honestly. Too scrunched-up, I think - ellipses in print are usually much wider, which looks better to me, and three periods approximates that more closely than the Unicode ellipsis.

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

#242
post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I guess if I was him, I would just close issues silently and ban the person who created them, if possible. I don't think I could be as nice as he is.

The problem is that AI can generate answers and code that look relevant and as if they were written by someone very competent. Since AI can generate a huge amount of code in a short time, it's difficult for the human brain to analyze it all and determine whether it's useful or just BS. And the worst case is when AI generates great code with a tiny, hard-to-discover catch that takes hours to spot and understand.

True, that is in some cases a problem. Though in this case it was pretty clear cut. At least the obvious time wasters would get the treatment.

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

#243

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…

Is this for internet points?

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

#244

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…

Unfortunately that seems to be the norm now – people literally reduce themselves to a copy-paste mechanism.

This has been a norm on Hacker One for over a decade.

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

#245
post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This resonates a lot with some observations I drafted last week about "AI Slop" at the workplace. Overall, people are making a net-negative contribution by not having a sense of when to review/filter the responses generated by AI tools, because either (i) someone else is required to make that additional effort, or (ii) the problem is not solved properly. This sounds similar to a few patterns I noted - The average len…

I have never seen an AI meeting summary that was useful or sufficient in explaining what happened in the meeting. I have no idea what people use them for other than as a status signal

I use them to seem engaged about something I don’t actually care about.

It’s painfully common to invite a laundry list of people to meetings.

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

#246
post #11

Over time, I've gotten a feel for what kind of content is AI-generated (e.g., images, text, and especially code...), and this text screams "AI" from top to bottom. I think badger responded very professionally; I'd be interested to see Linus Torvalds' reaction in such a situation :D

It’s interesting that you say that because besides the other perspectives on this type of matter, something I have come across is accusations of AI text that at the very least were not at all clearly AI, but also seemed like the accusation was simply a coping mechanism to deflect/evade having to accept or face new informatio/reality that was counter to one’s mental model or framework.

I think of that recent situation where video showed two black bags supposedly being thrown out of a White House window. I don’t really care enough to find out whether or not that video was real, but I did find it interesting that Trump immediately dismissed it as AI after immediately glancing at it. Regardless of whether it was real or not, it seems to me that his immediate “that’s AI” response was just a rather new form of lie, a type of blame shifting to AI.

I would argue that as stupid and meaningless as that kind of example is, a better response would have been something like “we will look into it” and then moving on. But it also feels like blaming AI for innocuous things preconditioned the public to deny and gaslight the public on other, more important things, e.g., for example claiming that Israel raining down bombs on civilian people in Gaza and mass murdering probably hundreds of thousands of innocent people in what looks like the start to the Terminator wars, is merely a figment of your imagination because you will be told that AI was used and AI will be scrubbed off that information so you also will never be told about it. It’s memory holed in the TelescreenAI.

These types of developments don’t exactly fill me with optimism. Remember how in 1984 the war never ended, always changed, while at the same time both always existed and also did not actually exist? It feels like we are heading in that direction, the gaslighting form here on out, especially in all the forms of overt and clandestine war will be so off the charts that it will likely cause unpredictable mass “hysterias” and various undulations in societies.

Most people have no idea just how much media is used to train humans like an AI would be trained or controlled, now throw in ever more believable AI generated audio, visual, and not even to mention the text slop.

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

#247
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the JS/Node scene was the pioneer in spamming emojis absolutely everywhere, well before AI. Maybe that's where the models picked it up from.

That's because utf-8 was such an absolute mess in JS that adding an emoji in your code was a flex that it worked. Sane languages have much less of this problem but the damage was done by the cargo cultists. Much like how curly braces in C are placed because back in the day you needed you punch card deck to be editable, but we got stuck with it even after we stared using screens.

> Much like how curly braces in C are placed because back in the day you needed you punch card deck to be editable, but we got stuck with it even after we stared using screens.

Can you expand on this? What do curly braces have anything to do with punch card decks being editable? What do screens?

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

#248
post #2

Jump to the point: https://hackerone.com/reports/3340109#:~:text=you%20did%20th...

this LLM-emboldened, mass Dunning-Kruger schizophrenia has gone from hilarious to sad to simply invoking disgust. this isn't even an earnest altruistic effort but some insecure fever dream of finally being acknowledged as a "genius" of some sort. the worst i've seen of this is some random redditor claiming to have _the_ authoritative version of a theory of everything and spamming it in every theoretical physics adjac…

The good news is this AI stuff is not profitable. Big companies and VCs are subsidizing all this AI slop. If it had cost this moron $5 to generate the slop to file this bug they probably would not have bothered. Hopefully the bubble bursts soon, very hard, and forces the money people to figure out how to charge for these services.

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

#249
post #49

Spent 15 minutes the other day testing a patch I received that claimed to fix a bug (Linux UI bug, not my forte). The “fix” was setting completely fictitious properties. Someone has plugged the GitHub issue into ChatGPT, spat out an untested answer. What’s even the point…

It's all in aid of some streetsweeper being able to add "contributor to X, Y, Z projects!" to their GitHub résumé. Before LLMs were a thing I also received worthless spelling-incorrection pull requests with the same aim.

Are spelling correction PRs not welcome? I'd never put it on a résumé but if I'm following a README and I see a typo, I'll generally open a quick PR to fix that. (no automated tools, not scanning for typos, just a human reading a README).

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

#250
I wonder if there could be some kind of platform where you have to pay a $5 deposit or something to be able to post bugs. If you waste people's time with total nonsense then you lose the $5 and can no longer report. If it's less egregious than this, like they at least made a human effort, then maybe you keep some of the deposit. Although maybe $10 or $50 would be better.
Post reply on HN