Thread

1. exabrial · 1790911855 · focus · HN ↗

   [dead]

   1. theteapot · 1790912663 · focus · HN ↗

      Did the non-deterministic computer program provide any references?

      1. [deleted] · 1790914393 · focus · HN ↗

         [deleted]

      2. exabrial · 1790915715 · focus · HN ↗

         I instructed it to not violate any robots.txt or cause any sort of floods. As such it did a general sweep without pulling the full texts or doing a complete analysis. I’d use it as a rough guide.

         My take is that we didn’t see 1000+ easily exploitable RCEs.

   2. globnomulous · 1790914522 · focus · HN ↗

      > Don't post generated text or AI-edited text. HN is for conversation between humans.

      <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;newsguidelines.html">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;newsguidelines.html

      1. mech422 · 1790915620 · focus · HN ↗

         actually - they didn&#x27;t...

         That was a human posting a count of issues generated by an ai... not an ai generated message? Or do all the issues need to be counted by hand now ?

         1. nairboon · 1790917620 · focus · HN ↗

            The underlying question is: has a human counted and classified those 140 issues? Or is that information the output of LLM?
         2. autoexec · 1790919716 · focus · HN ↗

            Anyone here who wanted an unreliable summarization from a chatbot could have just asked a chatbot for one. If the count&#x2F;breakdown of issues is important to someone, it&#x27;s probably important to them that it&#x27;s accurate. That means they&#x27;ll have to take the time to verify it properly anyway.

            1. [deleted] · 1790923230 · focus · HN ↗

               [deleted]

               1. birdsongs · 1790927028 · focus · HN ↗

                  [dead]

            2. mech422 · 1790942531 · focus · HN ↗

               someone did want an unreliable count from a chatbot, and did ask for it.. and they passed the information along in their comment (along with a very upfront comment about how the generated it). Feel free to come with other methods to generate unreliable summarization if you don&#x27;t like the chatbot generated one. I&#x27;m sure humans and off by one errors or maybe badly formed regex&#x27;s can give you a whole range of new things to complain about.

               1. autoexec · 1790970513 · focus · HN ↗

                  We know that humans are flawed and make errors. Those human generated errors are an intrinsic part of &quot;conversation between humans&quot;. We both expect and accept that when we read posts here because, as the guideline states, &quot;HN is for conversation between humans.&quot;

                  1. mech422 · 1791028998 · focus · HN ↗

                     and... you were responding to a human... so ... no problem..
      2. [deleted] · 1790915851 · focus · HN ↗

         [deleted]

      3. baq · 1790917125 · focus · HN ↗

         Thank you globomulous for disincentivizing people from responsible AI use disclosures.

         1. autoexec · 1790919179 · focus · HN ↗

            People who are respectful enough to disclose their use of AI in the first place will hopefully be respectful enough not to fill this space with AI slop after being informed&#x2F;reminded that it isn&#x27;t welcome.

            1. baq · 1790925542 · focus · HN ↗

               I can only reiterate what a sibling comment says: are we supposed to count cves by hand?

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.