71–80 of 124 posts
Ironically, even this piece is significantly AI-generated: - Primarily relies on a single piece of evidence from the curl project, and expands it into multiple paragraphs - "But here's the gut punch:", "You're not building ... You're addressing ...", "This is the fundamental problem:" and so many other instances of Linkedin-esque writing. - The listicle under "What Might Actually Work"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yesterday my wife burst into my office: "You used AI to generate that (podcast) episode summary, we don't sound like that!" In point of fact, I had not. After the security reporting issue, the next problem on the list is "trust in other people's writing".
I think one potential downside of using LLMs or exposing yourself to their generated content is that you may subconsciously adopt their quirks over time. Even if you aren't actively using AI for a particular task, prior exposure to their outputs could be biasing your thoughts. This has additional layers to it as well. For example, I actively avoid using em dash or anything that resembles it right now. If I had no exp…
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44072922
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yesterday my wife burst into my office: "You used AI to generate that (podcast) episode summary, we don't sound like that!" In point of fact, I had not. After the security reporting issue, the next problem on the list is "trust in other people's writing".
I think one potential downside of using LLMs or exposing yourself to their generated content is that you may subconsciously adopt their quirks over time. Even if you aren't actively using AI for a particular task, prior exposure to their outputs could be biasing your thoughts. This has additional layers to it as well. For example, I actively avoid using em dash or anything that resembles it right now. If I had no exp…
There's no "LLM style". There's "human style mimicked by LLMs". If they default to a specific style, then that's on the human user who chooses to go with it, or, likely, doesn't care. They could just as well make it output text in the style of Shakespeare or a pirate, eschew emojis and bulleted lists, etc.
If you're finding yourself influenced by LLMs—don't be. Here's why:
• It doesn't matter.
• Keep whatever style you had before LLMs.
:tada:
Ironically, even this piece is significantly AI-generated: - Primarily relies on a single piece of evidence from the curl project, and expands it into multiple paragraphs - "But here's the gut punch:", "You're not building ... You're addressing ...", "This is the fundamental problem:" and so many other instances of Linkedin-esque writing. - The listicle under "What Might Actually Work"
Yesterday my wife burst into my office: "You used AI to generate that (podcast) episode summary, we don't sound like that!" In point of fact, I had not. After the security reporting issue, the next problem on the list is "trust in other people's writing".
It's sad because people that are ok with AI art are still enjoying the human art just the same. Somehow their visceral hate of AI-art managed to ruin human art for themselves as well.
Most people's initial contributions are going to be more concrete exploits.
It doesn't have to make the final judgement, just some sort of filter that automatically flags things like function calls that don't exist in the code.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yesterday my wife burst into my office: "You used AI to generate that (podcast) episode summary, we don't sound like that!" In point of fact, I had not. After the security reporting issue, the next problem on the list is "trust in other people's writing".
I blogged about this fundamental demolition of trust a few months ago. HN discussed it here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44384610 The responses were a surprisingly mixed bag. What I thought was a very common sense observation had some heavy detractors in those threads.
> This is the fundamental problem: AI can generate the form of security research without the substance. I think this is the fundamental problem of LLMs in general. Some of the time looks just enough right to seem legitimate. Luckily the rest of the time it doesn’t.
The other fundamental problem is that to a grifter, it's not a fundamental problem for the output to be plausible but often wrong. Plausible is all they need.
> This is the fundamental problem: AI can generate the form of security research without the substance. I think this is the fundamental problem of LLMs in general. Some of the time looks just enough right to seem legitimate. Luckily the rest of the time it doesn’t.
Unfortunately, to a majority of the population approximately 100% of LLM output seems entirely legitimate.
> This is the fundamental problem: AI can generate the form of security research without the substance. I think this is the fundamental problem of LLMs in general. Some of the time looks just enough right to seem legitimate. Luckily the rest of the time it doesn’t.
Unfortunately, to a majority of the population approximately 100% of LLM output seems entirely legitimate.