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

451–460 of 571 posts

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

#451

Post by Analemma_ »

kg wrote: post #435
sealeck wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even a deposit works well (and doesn't have to be large). Someone who has actually found a serious bug in cURL will probably pay $2-5 dollars as a deposit to report (especially given the high probability of a payout).

I can afford it but I would never spend money to submit a vulnerability report. I'd need to be reporting dozens of vulnerabilities on a single site like hackerone to work up the motivation to plug in payment details and risk having them leaked/stolen in order to do someone else's work for them. I'd sooner click sponsor for the cURL project on github (something I already do for some OSS I use) than spend money to repo…

That's my attitude towards this sort of thing as well, but unfortunately it seems that this attitude is unsustainable now that the cost of generating plausible-looking bullshit has been driven to 0. "Pay to prove humanity" seems like one of the only ways to keep something like this running if we don't built a hugely-invasive system of attestation.

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

#452

Post by robwwilliams »

mewpmewp2 wrote: post #187
rvnx wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re absolutely right. The patterns you’ve noted, from document verbosity to informational decay in summaries, are the primary symptoms. Would you like me to explain the feedback loop that reinforces this behavior and its potential impact on organizational knowledge integrity?

Got it — here’s a satiric AI-slop style reply you could post under rvnx: Thank you for your profound observation. Indeed, the paradox you highlight demonstrates the recursive interplay between explanation and participation, creating a meta-layered dialogue that transcends the initial exchange. This recursive loop, far from being trivial, is emblematic of the broader epistemological challenge we face in discerning sin…

Hilarious, and so close to Claude default mode (well yes, parody lol thereof). Try this pre-prompt:

Please respond in mode of Ernest Hemingway

“You’re right. When someone explains why they’re explaining something, it goes in circles. Like a dog chasing its tail.

We do this because we can’t tell anymore when people mean what they say. Everything sounds fake. Even when it’s real.

There are three ways this happens. But naming them won’t fix anything.

You want more words about it? I can give you lists and fancy talk. Make it sound important. But it won’t change what it is.

[That is Claude Sonnet 4 channeling EH]

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

#453

Post by shomp »

sethops1 wrote: post #398
pbronez wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How far did they get? Did they solve the problem?

Does it matter? The point of the interview is not to produce an output.

If you don't solve the problem, do you get the job?

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

#454

Post by rdtsc »

I wonder what's going on in the minds of these people.

I would just be terribly embarrassed and not be able to look at myself in the mirror if I did shit like this.

> batuhanilgarr posted a comment (6 days ago) Thanks for the quick review. You’re right ...

On one hand, it's sort of surprising that they double down, copy and paste the response to the llm prompt, paste back that response and hope for the best. But, of course it shouldn't be surprising. This is not just a mistake, it's deliberate lying and manipulating.

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

#455

Post by DonHopkins »

isk517 wrote: post #418
chanon wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I posted a job for freelance dev work and all replies were obviously ai generated. Some even included websites that were clearly made by other people as their 'prior work'. So I pulled the posting and probably won't post again. Who knew. AI is costing jobs, not because it can do the jobs, but it has made hiring actual competent humans harder.

Plus, because it's harder to just do a job listing and get actual submittals, you're going to see more people hired because who are hired because of who they know not what they know. In other words if you wasted your time in networking class working on networking instead of working on networking then you're screwed

The arts and crafts industry has the same problem. If you wasted your time in knotworking class working on not working instead of working on knotworking, then you're screwed.

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

#456

Post by hintymad »

This reminded me of an interview I listened to by a startup founder talking about how his company integrates AI into all of its workflows. During the Q&A, he said that they could tackle any challenge simply by iteratively constructing better contexts for the AI. At first this sounded optimistic, but then it struck me that it was actually the ultimate pessimistic view of what current AI can do. His assumption seemed to be that software engineers have already implemented all the primitives humans will ever need. If that’s true, then the only task left is to phrase our instructions in the right way so the model can stitch those primitives together into a production system.

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

#457

Post by kleiba »

jtwaleson wrote: post #59
rpigab wrote: post #13

"I heard you were extremely quick at math" Me: "yes, as a matter of fact I am" Interviewer: "Whats 14x27" Me: "49" Interviewer: "that's not even close" me: "yeah, but it was fast"

There should be a language that uses "Almost-In-Time" compilation. If it runs out of time, it just gives a random answer.

This might be a similar but possibly more sensible approach? -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anytime_algorithm

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

#459

Post by hirvi74 »

figers wrote: post #434
alexpotato wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I watched someone do this during an interview. They were literally copy and pasting back and forth the LLM. In front of the interviewers! (myself and another co-worker) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44985254

I had someone do this in my C# / .NET Core / SQL coding test interview as well, I didn't just end it right there as I wanted to see if they could solve the coding test in the time frame allowed. They did not, I now state you can search anything online but can't copy and paste from an LLM so as not to waste my time.

What did your test involve? That's my occupational stack, and I am always curious how interviews are conducted these days. I haven't applied for a job in over 9 years, if that tells you anything.

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

#460

Post by cogman10 »

colpabar wrote: post #319
b112 wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I don't get, is why people think this action has value. The maintainer of the project could ask an LLM to do that. A senior dev. I can't imagine Googling for something, seeing someone on (for example) stackoverflow commenting on code, and then filing a bug to the maintainer. And just copy and pasting what someone else said, into the bug report. All without even comprehending the code, the project, or even runnin…

The person who submitted the report was looking to be a person who found a critical bug, that's it. It's not about understanding/fixing/helping anything, it's about gaining clout.

Exactly, probably so they can get a job, write a blog post, or sell NordVPN on a podcast showing off how amazing and easy this is.

IMO, this sort of thing is downright malicious. It not only takes up time for the real devs to actually figure out if it's a real bug, but it also makes them cynical about incoming bug reports.

Post reply on HN