I think they misspelled censor.

I use LLMs daily to piece together technical reports and smooth out rough drafts. It saves me hours of time / week.

I also use it to augment my technical work, because I don't want to be out of a job one day with no marketable skills, except driving an agent harness.

There is a percentage of the population that thinks LLMs are actually intelligent and truly can't tell the difference.

I think others just want to live life as a passenger, not think, and have AI do all the work.

Currently, it's very expensive and most companies are running at a loss to grab market share. Should tax payers fund these losses as well? People like Bernie Sanders only want to benefit from a situation where all risk is taken out of the equation and they can take the wins, which doesn't line up with reality.

In addition to this, it's relatively cheap for the average person to get access to AI, since it's essentially being subsidized by investors.

Many of the LLM maximalists I know don't have the skills or knowledge to excel in technology and need to use LLMs to do their job. It's seen as a cheat code to get work done.

As an example, A person I went to high school with that could barely figure out how to setup a Drupal site a few years ago, is now a frontier engineer at an AI startup. His Linkedin posts are filled with AI buzz words on a daily basis.

"It's inherently worth more because it's hard-earned and anchored to experiences we share. "

At some point, it will be impossible to tell the difference. Many people already can't tell if something was generated by AI.

in-person interviews only and in-person testing only in college.

It was very rare to find someone genuinely interested in it.

It will be. What's going to happen is that once everyone is onboard with AI, it will become the new standard. As a software engineer, it will be expected to build and ship many more multiples of code, than being shipped today.

It's still baffling that so many engineers in the tech community are embracing a technology that will most definitely put them out of work. You will not be the exception.

I got out of software engineering in 2019 or so..just before the AI craze. My job seems to be pretty secure, for now.

Our company audited a few AI-based pentesting companies and requested logs. In more than one case, it was sending drop tables for sql query injection checking and other destructive operations.

Prisoners aren't 'slaves'. They are being punished for crimes they committed. Very dofferent than being born into it and bought/sold to the highest bidder.

On the contrary, because I spent so much of my youth in front of a computer, most technical things are second-nature to me. While I see large amounts of people laid off in the tech industry, my net worth and income is only growing.

"So stop complaining and start coming up with more creative uses of AI writing if you have a problem with it."

Using AI/LLM takes about 1% of my brain power. Cobbling a bunch of scripts together to basically ask questions to an LLM is well within the skillsets of many people in the tech industry.

The people with the knowledge and skills pre-LLM will be dominating the industry, getting paid the most, and will be employed for years to come. The rest will be on the unemployment line.

Overly relying on AI going forward will only atrophy your skills and make you completely reliant on the companies providing the tokens.

Agentic bug bounty hunting just isn't that good yet. At most, it can find low-hanging fruit. The more critical bugs that are hard-to-find still can't be found by agents. Now, source code scanning is the exception, which is about 10% or less of bug bounty programs.

I feel like the people spending thousands on tokens are basically gambling. Even if you find a critical and have all the evidence, 50%+ of the time, the company will find a way to not pay you. It's not worth the token investment.

Bug bounty has actually gotten easier for me. Too many people think they can just use Agents to do all the work, and are not focusing on other more serious bugs. Over time, new comers will completely rely on AI and it will make the people with actual skills even more valuable.

The platforms are receiving more reports that use AI...and 90% are crap. It's only forced companies like HackerOne to create two report queues where established players gets humans to review their reports and everyone else goes through an AI review.

I'm a security consultant and regularly lead pentesting engagements for companies. One thing preventing most companies from using AI is the token cost. Most companies that I deal with rarely want to spent any extra money on security.

The other is the fact that no matter how many guardrails you have in place, there's always a chance (now, a high one) that production data will be destroyed or it will add more liability to the company in terms of data leakage. I can't tell you how many times I've been contacted by a client when a tester bumps into something that caused a huge issue in production or even staging environments.

I think AI works better with finding bugs in source code, before it's pushed to production, which will lead to less bugs overall.

I'm not against AI and use multiple models daily and it definitely augments my skills, but I just think we need to be more realistic about it.