4 ms·

Oh god, going through some of the reports listed on the bottom of the page feels like a nightmare. I cannot imagine how it is for the actual maintainers. I won

Oh god, going through some of the reports listed on the bottom of the page feels like a nightmare. I cannot imagine how it is for the actual maintainers. I wonder what's the solution here. You need to be able to receive reports from anyone, so a reputation based system is not applicable. It also seems like we cannot detect whether a piece of text was generated with LLM..

Hendrikto 1y ago
I would have closed ALL of the linked reports much sooner, and banned the reporters. In most cases it is extremely obvious from very early on in the thread that these people have not the slightest idea what they are saying and just copy-paste AI responses.
amiga386 1y ago
> It also seems like we cannot detect whether a piece of text was generated with LLM Based on reading those same reports, I think you can totally can detect it, and Daniel also thinks that -- or at least, you can tell when it's very obvious and the user has pretty much just pasted what they got from the LLM into the submit box. Sneaky humans, trying to disguise their sources by removing the obvious tells, make it harder. The curl staff assume good faith and let the submitter explain themselves. Maybe the submitter has a reason for using it -- the submitter may be honest or dishonest as they wish. I like that the curl staff ask submitters to admit up-front if any AI was used, so they can discriminate between people with a legitimate use case (e.g. people who don't speak English but can find valid exploits and want to use machine translation for their writeup), versus others (e.g. people who think generalised LLMs can do security analysis). But even so, the central point of this blog post is that the bad humans waste their time, they can't get that time back, and even directly banning them does not have much of an effect on the bad humans, or the next batch of bad humans.
vincnetas 1y ago
Why reputation is not applicable. Arrange for whitelist off-channel and then submit your requests. I think that reputation and non-anonymity is the only applicable way forward. And when i say "non-anonymity" i don't mean "public". You can be non-anonymous with one person not the whole world.

Hendrikto 1y ago

I would have closed ALL of the linked reports much sooner, and banned the reporters. In most cases it is extremely obvious from very early on in the thread that these people have not the slightest idea what they are saying and just copy-paste AI responses.

amiga386 1y ago

> It also seems like we cannot detect whether a piece of text was generated with LLM Based on reading those same reports, I think you can totally can detect it, and Daniel also thinks that -- or at least, you can tell when it's very obvious and the user has pretty much just pasted what they got from the LLM into the submit box. Sneaky humans, trying to disguise their sources by removing the obvious tells, make it harder. The curl staff assume good faith and let the submitter explain themselves. Maybe the submitter has a reason for using it -- the submitter may be honest or dishonest as they wish. I like that the curl staff ask submitters to admit up-front if any AI was used, so they can discriminate between people with a legitimate use case (e.g. people who don't speak English but can find valid exploits and want to use machine translation for their writeup), versus others (e.g. people who think generalised LLMs can do security analysis). But even so, the central point of this blog post is that the bad humans waste their time, they can't get that time back, and even directly banning them does not have much of an effect on the bad humans, or the next batch of bad humans.

vincnetas 1y ago

Why reputation is not applicable. Arrange for whitelist off-channel and then submit your requests. I think that reputation and non-anonymity is the only applicable way forward. And when i say "non-anonymity" i don't mean "public". You can be non-anonymous with one person not the whole world.