So I guess everyone uses LLMs to think now
READ THE ORIGINAL SOURCEOpen original sourceeva.ac · Opens in a new tabA security blogger explains why they do not use LLMs for their research and writeups, citing enjoyment of hands-on work, an inability to credit an LLM, and frustration with confidently wrong outputs. They argue LLMs still need skilled guidance and criticize AI companies for marketing-driven vulnerability disclosures, including php2shell, which was released by multiple companies with differing narratives, and a Tailscale privilege escalation claim shared via hash and social posts before responsible disclosure.
One primary source; other links are context, not independent corroboration.
- Primary sourceHacker News · LLM
- Discovery linkHacker News
- Linked in sourceparanoid_crypto
A community post points to the original link. Discussion and upvotes do not establish accuracy.
Open full article view →- Community discussion+5
- Fetched source page+30
- No editor link review+0
- Community link+0
This measures the stored source trail and editorial steps. It does not certify accuracy, peer review, or independent corroboration. Popularity adds no points.
View full scoring →Read the scoring rubric →What the source says
A security blogger explains why they do not use LLMs for their research and writeups, citing enjoyment of hands-on work, an inability to credit an LLM, and frustration with confidently wrong outputs. They argue LLMs still need skilled guidance and criticize AI companies for marketing-driven vulnerability disclosures, including php2shell, which was released by multiple companies with differing narratives, and a Tailscale privilege escalation claim shared via hash and social posts before responsible disclosure.
A READER'S EVIDENCE CHECKHow to read this signalSix questions about claims, sources, risks, and open checks
This is a signal-level guide until claim-level evidence is available. “Not recorded” means the evidence has not been assessed here; it does not mean a result is false. How we check AI news →
- 01Who is making each claim?
The claimant and whether each claim was measured or asserted are not recorded in this public brief.
- 02What was actually tested?
Not recorded per claim. Check the source for sample size, tasks, model and benchmark versions, and reproducibility.
- 03Where are the sources?
Original link: eva.ac. Brief basis: fetched source page. Primary page date and quote locations are not established in this panel.
- 04What could mislead?
Source claims not independently checked; this is an opinionated personal blog post, not a neutral report.
- 05What is at risk if wrong?
Not assessed per claim. Consider safety, privacy, cost, and adoption decisions before relying on the result.
- 06What would change the view?
No claim-specific check is recorded. An inspectable primary method or independent replication could change the assessment.
Key findings from the stored brief
- The author has never used AI for published research and says LLM output frustrates them enough to stop using it.
- Recent LLM-assisted vulnerabilities were found by skilled researchers guiding models, not by LLMs alone.
- The author argues the php2shell disclosure was framed differently by calif, OpenAI, and Wiz.
- The author says a Tailscale privilege escalation was posted without responsible disclosure and required existing ACL access and Tailscale SSH.
Source claims not independently checked; this is an opinionated personal blog post, not a neutral report.
This is a source-based abstract, not independent validation of the source's claims.
Evidence & sources
These links show where the signal came from and what the source page linked to. A linked page is context, not independent corroboration.
A community post points to the original link. Discussion and upvotes do not establish accuracy.
Timeline & updates
- Signal dated by source or discovery feed
This timestamp places the signal in the radar. It may be the discovery post date rather than the primary page's first publication date.
- Shared brief stored
AINewsIQ prepared one abstract from fetched source page.
A publication revision history is not stored for this signal. New engagement snapshots do not mean the source itself changed.
Why this may matter
The post offers a practitioner's critique of AI-driven vulnerability disclosure practices, including hash and PoC drops, and how marketing may shape security communication.
Limits and open questions
Source claims not independently checked; this is an opinionated personal blog post, not a neutral report.
Organization-specific financial, security, and operational effects require the organization's own context and review.
Discussion
Comments are reviewed before publication. Discuss the evidence, not the person.
No published comments yet.
Reader discussion opens with accounts. You can read the original source and published comments now.