3 ms·

The authors have said it isn't. I can't believe saying a security vulnerability is "reproducible", "critical", etc. is a "classic tell of ai". I've used "repr

by jfindper 10mo ago

The authors have said it isn't. I can't believe saying a security vulnerability is "reproducible", "critical", etc. is a "classic tell of ai". I've used "reproducible" and "critical" in my deliverables since well before ai was a thing.

deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
rvnx 10mo ago
Is it so important ? It's a mix of AI and human-written. It's normal nowadays and perfectly acceptable. + it is maybe 10% AI max, which seems to be for the structure / readability, and there is legit information under.
- jfindper 10mo ago
  >Because author says it, it doesn't mean that it is true. And because random HNer says it is ai doesn't mean it is ai. >But still, is it so important? Not to me, no. If the information is useful/entertaining/etc., I don't really care. But having to read "it's ai!" comments on literally every article/blog posted for the next 10 years is going to be super annoying. Especially if the reasoning provided is "they used the word critical". At least you pointed to something kind of interesting with the quotation marks (although, certainly not definitive of anything), rather than saying some extremely common word = ai.
  - rvnx 10mo ago
    Absolutely, anyway you'll have critical judgment to make your own opinion. What bothers me about the Wiz post is why they want to hide this HTTP request is actually not helpful in terms of security. On the plus side, they help getting the word out there, so at least something.
- nostrademons 10mo ago
  So smart quotes is now an LLM tell? You know that a lot of people write in word processors that automatically replace standard quotes with smart quotes (like, say, MS Word), and that these word processors can then export HTML straight into your block or preserve the smart quotes across a copy & paste? Several blog WYSIWYG editors will also directly insert them as well.
  - NitpickLawyer 10mo ago
    I think what they're saying is that having both in a document is the tell.
    - nostrademons 10mo ago
      The document doesn't have both in it. It's possible it was edited, but someone else in the thread posted the archive.org original version, and it also doesn't have smart quotes: https://web.archive.org/web/20251203162416/https://www.wiz.io/blog/critical-vulnerability-in-react-cve-2025-55182 https://web.archive.org/web/20251203162416/https://www.wiz.i... (Note also that you can end up with mismatched quotes if you paste in a segment of text from some other source that uses them, which is pretty common in journalism for a fast-changing story.)
      - mmsc 10mo ago
        https://archive.md/2025.12.03-165833/https://www.wiz.io/blog/critical-vulnerability-in-react-cve-2025-55182 https://archive.md/2025.12.03-165833/https://www.wiz.io/blog... Mismatched smart quotes are visible in this archive.
- aprilthird2021 10mo ago
  Yeah it's important, it degrades trust in the reader if you use AI without disclosing or ensuring them the document was proofread. Same way if you read an article full of typos you lose trust in it. Those tells of AI voice undermine the author and make the reader suspicious
  - jfindper 10mo ago
    >Same way if you read an article full of typos you lose trust in it Not for long! This seems like this will soon be the only way to put something on the internet without people rabidly saying its ai (at least for a few weeks, until people start prompting for typos to be included).

deleted 10mo ago

[deleted]

rvnx 10mo ago

Is it so important ? It's a mix of AI and human-written. It's normal nowadays and perfectly acceptable. + it is maybe 10% AI max, which seems to be for the structure / readability, and there is legit information under.

jfindper 10mo ago
>Because author says it, it doesn't mean that it is true. And because random HNer says it is ai doesn't mean it is ai. >But still, is it so important? Not to me, no. If the information is useful/entertaining/etc., I don't really care. But having to read "it's ai!" comments on literally every article/blog posted for the next 10 years is going to be super annoying. Especially if the reasoning provided is "they used the word critical". At least you pointed to something kind of interesting with the quotation marks (although, certainly not definitive of anything), rather than saying some extremely common word = ai.
- rvnx 10mo ago
  Absolutely, anyway you'll have critical judgment to make your own opinion. What bothers me about the Wiz post is why they want to hide this HTTP request is actually not helpful in terms of security. On the plus side, they help getting the word out there, so at least something.
nostrademons 10mo ago
So smart quotes is now an LLM tell? You know that a lot of people write in word processors that automatically replace standard quotes with smart quotes (like, say, MS Word), and that these word processors can then export HTML straight into your block or preserve the smart quotes across a copy & paste? Several blog WYSIWYG editors will also directly insert them as well.
- NitpickLawyer 10mo ago
  I think what they're saying is that having both in a document is the tell.
  - nostrademons 10mo ago
    The document doesn't have both in it. It's possible it was edited, but someone else in the thread posted the archive.org original version, and it also doesn't have smart quotes: https://web.archive.org/web/20251203162416/https://www.wiz.io/blog/critical-vulnerability-in-react-cve-2025-55182 https://web.archive.org/web/20251203162416/https://www.wiz.i... (Note also that you can end up with mismatched quotes if you paste in a segment of text from some other source that uses them, which is pretty common in journalism for a fast-changing story.)
    - mmsc 10mo ago
      https://archive.md/2025.12.03-165833/https://www.wiz.io/blog/critical-vulnerability-in-react-cve-2025-55182 https://archive.md/2025.12.03-165833/https://www.wiz.io/blog... Mismatched smart quotes are visible in this archive.
aprilthird2021 10mo ago
Yeah it's important, it degrades trust in the reader if you use AI without disclosing or ensuring them the document was proofread. Same way if you read an article full of typos you lose trust in it. Those tells of AI voice undermine the author and make the reader suspicious
- jfindper 10mo ago
  >Same way if you read an article full of typos you lose trust in it Not for long! This seems like this will soon be the only way to put something on the internet without people rabidly saying its ai (at least for a few weeks, until people start prompting for typos to be included).