Open source project curl is sick of users submitting “AI slop” vulnerabilities
Open source project curl is sick of users submitting “AI slop” vulnerabilities
"One way you can tell is it's always such a nice report. Friendly phrased, perfect English, polite, with nice bullet-points … an ordinary human never does it like that in their first writing,"
Damn straight.
I shoot for this but am detectable by constantly making edits to make my point more understandable, adding something relevant that I thought of later (literally editing this post right now to include "adding something relevant that I thought of later") or to correct typos.
Stenberg, saying that he's "had it" and is "putting my foot down on this craziness," suggested that every suspected AI-generated HackerOne report will have its reporter asked to verify if they used AI to find the problem or generate the submission. If a report is deemed "AI slop," the reporter will be banned. "We still have not seen a single valid security report done with AI help," Stenberg wrote.
I appreciate this because I'd hate to get my issue removed as AI slop because I wasn't enough of an asshole and didn't make enough English mistakes. All for rejecting AI slop but it'd feel bad being the false positive deemed "not human enough" and getting my efforts tossed out too.
I may or may not be one of those autistic people who tried to compensate for my social deficiencies and inability to read the room by doing my best to be polite, nice, and inoffensive. (It helps that those qualities do not conflict with who I want to be at all.) And "nice and inoffensive" helps you easily subclass/multiclass into corpo dialect…
I find it really easy to tell the difference between a human being polite, neat and well-spoken, and an AI being the same (but soulless). I don't know if I could put it into words though, there's just something about AI that lacks subjectivity? A human would phrase something in a certain way and stick with it, because that's the way they experience it, while the AI takes a phrasing at random, only caring about gaining lexical and grammatical points.
I also think humans overestimate their ability to write clearly and correctly. There's always some noise in there, even if they're going full corpo-speak. Unless it's written-by-committee meaningless corpo, but then I don't even read it beyond the first sentence. It's very obvious when someone has tried to strip all meaning from a sentence and the result is not far from AI.
Oh yeah, I'm in the same boat. I'll go back to an issue I opened and keep adding context to make sure it's as fleshed out as possible, because English isn't my first language. Plus AuDD in my case.
For what it's worth, if you didn't tell me English wasn't your first language, I would not have known from this comment.
Unless you're an Autist who has heavily specced into the Corpo dialect/persona/mask.
Not autistic, but I write like chatgpt. And I really like formatting.
Without getting into a massive discussion about self-diagnosis and validity of various tests in which demographics and what not...
https://embrace-autism.com/raads-r/
If your total score is 65 or over on this, you may wanna look into a formal diagnosis.
I was going to say it may not be a good time to get diagnosed, but that feels a lot like obeying in advance.
Oh, yes, that's ... a whole thing as well.
Wonderful time to be Autistic in the US, what with RFK Jr (the guy with the actual brain worm, life long anti-vaxxer, who is now in charge of essentially medical policy in the US) describing all Autistic people as literally pants-shittingly stupid, saying that he'd like to take all people using any kind of psychiatricly prescribed medication to detox, no electronics, farm labor camps.
... I wonder if Canada would accept an asylum petition from Americans who either are, or suspect they may be Autistic at this point?
Eh, whatever it is, if anything, isn't really affecting me too bad.
The test is interesting, but the lack of nuance in it (only true, true at certain times, or never true) makes it hard to answer.
I agree, the poor phrasing of many questions is annoying.
But as best I can tell, that test is the most widely recognized as valid initially screening test, in that it essentially never produces false positives (neurotypicals do not score 65 or over).
It is also supposed to be properly administered by a professional who is sufficiently trained to address questions you may have about how to answer the questions.
On one hand, if it isn't a big deal to you, than I absolutely do not want to pressure you into pursuing it just for my sake.
On the other hand, I am reasonably confident that taking issue with the poor phrasing of many of the questions... is itself an indicator, to some extent, that you are more likely to be higher up in the score, on the spectrum... because constantly asking to further specify things that are poorly or ambiguously worded... is a common trait of Autists.
Neurotypicals tend to barrel ahead with the first possibly ambiguous meaning or question answer without reflection or reconsideration.
Autists tend to do the exact opposite.
... This is part of the reason you're supposed to do this test with a trained professional observing/proctoring, when you go for a formal diagnosis.
It's me.
I caught a stray bullet reading that.
I feel this is one of the few instances where I can say 'takes one to know one' and not mean that in some kind of rude or bellittling way.
Also: Etiquette!
Thats the word I couldn't think of, thats used in ShadowRun to describe the ... set of vocabulary and base cultural knowledge that functionally constitutes a social class, within those games.
Linus was ahead of his time in the human-identifiabilty stakes.
