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

511–520 of 571 posts

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

#511

Post by kstrauser »

pessimizer wrote: post #233
kstrauser wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And where did you suppose AIs learned this, if not from us? Turns out lots of us use dashes — and semicolons! And the word “the”! — and we’re going to stuff just because others don’t like punctuation.

I find it disturbing that many people don't seem to realize that chatbot output is forced into a strict format that it fills in recursively, because the patterns that LLMs recognize are no longer than a few paragraphs. Chatbots are choosing response templates based on the type of response that is being given. Many of those templates include unordered lists, and the unordered list marker that they chose was the em-das…

All that may be true. Let’s assume for argument that it is. I’ve had people call out my own handwritten, zero-AI comments (which are 100% of them) as likely to be AI because I used proper grammar, common punctuation, and a bullet list.

To me, “ah ha, gotcha, AI wrote this!” comments are more common and tedious than the AI-augmented comments themselves.

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

#512

Post by blharr »

pizlonator wrote: post #335
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…

Wait so are we now saying that these AIs are failing the Turing test? (I mean I guess it has to mean that if we are able to spot them so easily)

You don't spot the ones you don't spot

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

#513

Post by GalaxyNova »

hermannj314 wrote: post #165

Start charging users to submit a vulnerability report. It doesn't matter if it made by AI or a human, spammers operate by cheaply overproducing and externalizing their work onto you to validate their shit. And it works because sometimes they do deliver value by virtue of large numbers. But they are a net negative for society. Their model stops working if they have to pay for the time they wasted.

This is a horrible idea. If you want to discourage people from submitting reports then this is how you do it..

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

#514

Post by byb »

ekjhgkejhgk wrote: post #471
byb wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The two alternative solutions posed so far are 1) drop the ai bounty program 2) charge for submissions. Present an alternative.

No, I dont have to. I never claimed I had an alternative. All I claimed was that saying theres not alternative is unsubstantiated and you proved me right, by listing those alternatives.

They were listed in the numerous other replies, and in the initial blog post. Both have been dismissed as undesirable/unworkable. What's your point. I'm not interested in a discussion as to whether alternatives exist, I'm interested in discussing the merits of those alternatives.

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

#515

Post by phyzome »

mock-possum wrote: post #357
jmuguy wrote: post #332

This is essentially what teachers are dealing with every day, across the majority of their students, for every subject where its even remotely possible to use AI.

Why not deal with it the same way teachers have always felt with students breaking the rules?

Because 1) you often can't prove it, and 2) there often isn't support from administration.

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

#516

Post by novemp »

belter wrote: post #118
karel-3d wrote: post #78

This is the AI that is now writing the next version of your operating system.

This is the AI adding more "growth" to the US economy than all consumer spending combined. "The AI bubble is so big it's propping up the US economy" - https://www.bloodinthemachine.com/p/the-ai-bubble-is-so-big-...

This is the AI that half of HackerNews insists is "the future" that you'll be "left behind" from if you don't embrace it.

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

#517

Post by joquarky »

donohoe wrote: post #177
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"

function getRandomNumber() { return 4 }

Good teacher. He really seems to care.

About what, I have no idea.

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

#518

Post by hermannj314 »

GalaxyNova wrote: post #513
hermannj314 wrote: post #165

Start charging users to submit a vulnerability report. It doesn't matter if it made by AI or a human, spammers operate by cheaply overproducing and externalizing their work onto you to validate their shit. And it works because sometimes they do deliver value by virtue of large numbers. But they are a net negative for society. Their model stops working if they have to pay for the time they wasted.

This is a horrible idea. If you want to discourage people from submitting reports then this is how you do it..

Reducing waste, fraud, and abuse is always only one side of the story. I agree it would have false negative impact (someone does not submit a good report that otherwise would have), but I don't think that instantly makes it a horrible idea. I think the net effect would have to be studied, but I highly doubt all true postive reports would become false negatives. The goal is reducing false positives, so it is going to be a tradeoff and you'd need specific numbers to conclude anything.

Do you really think it is a horrible idea? That is just so harsh of a label.

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

#519

Post by joquarky »

simsla wrote: post #148
misnome wrote: post #6

I wonder where the balance of “Actual time saved for me” vs “Everyone else's time wasted” lies in this technological “revolution”.

Agreed. I've found some AI assistance to be tremendously helpful (Claude Code, Gemini Deep Research) but there needs to be a human in the loop . Even in a professional setting where you can hold people accountable, this pops up. If you're using AI, you need to be that human, because as soon as you create a PR / hackerone report, it should stop being the AI's PR/report, it should be yours . That means the responsibili…

We've going from being writers to editors: a particular human must still ultimately be responsible for signing off on their work, regardless of how it was put together.

This is also why you don't have your devs do QA. Someone has to be responsible for, and focused specifically on quality; otherwise responsibility will be dissolved among pointing fingers.

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

#520

Post by joquarky »

dandanua wrote: post #28
stahorn wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're doing it wrong: You should just feed other peoples AI-generated responses into your own AI tools and let the tool answer for you! The loop is then closed, no human time wasted, and the only effect is wasted energy to run the AI tools. It's the perfect business model to turn energy into money.

And then alien civilization will wonder how humans went extinct.

Don't Date Robots!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3O3-ngj7I98

Post reply on HN