Earlier quoted context omitted.
A thing that notably triggers my allergies is that if significant human effort went into something, a few paragraphs written by a human seems like a trivial additional investment; if that last touch is missing, it's really hard for me to extend the benefit of the doubt that there really is something there. Obviously this is only one signal among many, one that can be overruled, but the ick remains regardless.
It frankly doesn't matter how much human effort went into finding the vulnerability, it just matters if it exists, how severe it is, and how easy it is to exploit.
If an exploit is actually working, human effort is void and the ML has done a great job. However most of the time its hallucinating, confidently talking gibberish in technical lingo. This phenomena is only amplified by those who try to make a quick buck without effort using older models, not reviewing output or prompting properly ('find me bugs in Linux, make no mistakes')