3 ms·
My comment was solely about the correct attribution who made the initial finding. It's not a comment about the value of AI. I think we can get facts right and s
by Yokohiii 5mo ago
My comment was solely about the correct attribution who made the initial finding. It's not a comment about the value of AI. I think we can get facts right and still argue for or against AI.
- furyofantares 5mo agoThat's a pet peeve of mine as well, the inability to discuss facts / correct mistaken things on the internet, if the fact/mistake is on the "wrong" side of an argument. I don't think I'm doing that though. The context is a discussion about whether it would have been found without the assistance of an LLM. I agree that further upthread there maybe some misattribution but it is not present in the post you were directly replying to and it is not really the argument being made.
- Yokohiii 5mo agoHis whole sentiment was yelling several times "LLMs did this". He wanted to smuggle his pro AI attribution in, one way or another. In that way I could also argue "without humans, we wouldn't have LLMs." But it doesn't have value, right? I don't know why some try so hard to play down any human impact in this context. LLMs can help to find bugs. Without broader context it's a good and interesting thing. There is no need to trample over everything left and right just to overhype it.